<m^. l^Mln 

=s?7.^ .....J^.'S' , 

'^o.Auit^/ii .^y^i. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



^^^ 



..-^ XV 



^tiC \ ,'^ )\ . V 






CHEISTIAN BAPTISM. 



THE DUTY, 



THE ACT, AND THE SUBJECTS. 



By G. H. ball, 

PASTOH OF THE FREE BAPTIST CHURCH, BUFFALO, X. Y, 




DOVER: 

PUBLISHED BY THE FKEEWILL BAPTIST PRINTING 
ESTABLISHMENT. 

WILLIAM BURR, PRINTER. 

1860. 



^M 



l^\ 






Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1860j 
by <« The Freewill Baptist Printing Establishment," in 
the Clerk's Office of the District Court of New Hamp^ 
shire* 



-^ A 



^ri 



INTKODUCTION. 



Eeligious controversy has its evils ; but they are 
trifling compared to those which pertain to indif- 
ference to the truth. Error is the parent of divis- 
ion and sectarianism ; and thorough, vigorous, per- 
sistent discussion is the only remedy for this evil, 
the only path to unity in truth. " Earnestly con- 
tend for the faith," is a Divine injunction. Truth 
never suffers in a fair contest. The strength of 
error is in concealment and quiet ; hence it depre- 
cates discussion, shuns the light. 

Honest men love to state their doctrine, and 
urge their reasons, and have them assailed, tried, 
tested by vigorous combat. As they love truth 
more than victory, they are glad to see every falla- 
cy exposed, every false position demolished, every 
error confuted, that they may not suffer the grea' 
misfortune of believing and defending a lie. 



IV INTRODUCTION. 

Sharp discussion does not imply lack of broth- 
erly love between the antagonists. Sometimes 
passion and bigotry embitters the feelings of the 
parties, but this is by no means a necessary con- 
sequence ; indeed, it is a positive defect in the 
discussion, and is a discredit to those who indulge 
in it. 

In the following pages we have assailed Pedo- 
baptism as best we could in the space allotted, 
We honestly believe the practice to be an error 
and an evil ; and if we could, we would destroy 
the faith of all persons in it, and lead them to the 
" one baptism" of the gospel. But while w^e are 
strongly set against this error of a large share of 
the Christian world, we are earnestly attached to 
the truth they do believe, and the virtues which 
they practice, and find ourselves bound to them by 
numerous brotherly ties, and are with them in the 
spirit of Christ, the labors of love, and fellowship 
of hearts. 

Many of the best men this world has ever seen, 
believed and practiced the error against w^hich we 
write ; many of our dearest Christian brethren 
with whom we delight to take sweet counsel in 
the Christian journey, now believe and practice 
it. We believe them honest, pious, friends to 
Christ, and lovers of men, and hence cherish 

m as our oivn brethren, precious to us, and 



INTllODUCTION. V 

precious to our Master ; and we protest against 
any interpretation of our language or arguments 
that shall limit, or cast the least shadow of doubt 
upon the sincerity and reality of this brotherly re- 
gard. 

But the more earnestly we love them, and 
the truth which our common Lord has given to 
us, the more persistently, boldly, plainly, we feel 
bound to expose their error, and endeavor to ' 
bring them into the full unity of the gospel. 

We are aware that the majority of the Chris- 
tian world are Pedobaptists. The Papists, Lu- 
therans, and the numerous smaller sects. Epis- 
copalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, &c., all ad- 
here to this doctrine. So that, if the majority 
are right, we are wrong. But thus far the ma- 
jority of men have been wrong ; and it is wholly 
unsafe to receive any doctrine as true because 
the multitude believe in it. It is worthy of in- 
quiry whether all these Protestant sects did not 
derive this practice from the Papists, rather than 
from the gospel. Papists and Protestants are 
agreed in this rite, and . it may be that the latter 
have accepted a Papal tradition, and are now per- 
petuating a Papal rite. The case deserves careful 
investigation. 

Union among Christians can never be attained 
so long as this question is unsettled. If Pedo- 



VI INTRODUCTION. 

baptism is scriptural, infants are eligible to church 
membership, and the whole polity of the church 
must correspond to this fact. But if it is not 
Scriptural, then church membership is conditioned 
on the faith and obedience of the subject, and the 
church polity must conform to this fact. Many 
important things in church polity and Christian 
doctrine hang upon the question of Christian bap- 
tism. Hence, so long as Christians are not agreed 
on this point, they cannot unite on many others. 

"We pray for Christian union, and to this end 
we also write, that all may come to " the unity 
of the faith," " One Lord^ one Faiths one Bap- 
tism.'" 



INDEX 



Page. 

CHAP. I.— Baptism A Duty, - - - - l 

CHAP, n The Act of Baptism, - - - 9 

Sec. 1. Testimony of the Dictionaries, - - 13 

«< 2, " '' Encyclopsedias, - 17 

*< 3. << *' Church History, - - 19 

«< 4. «« << Greek Church, - 21 

*< 5. Scriptural Allusions to Baptism, - - 24 

" 6. Figurative use of Baptize, - - - 26 

« 7. Conclusion, 34 

CHAP. HI. — Subjects op Baptism, - - - 40 
Sec. 1. Believers alone Commanded to be Bap- 
tized, 42 

<* 2. The Baptism of all others Forbidden, 45 
<« 3. The Nature of Baptism renders it impos- 
sible for any others to be Baptized, - 51 
<* 4. Pedobaptists declare their own Argu- 
ments to be Fallacious, - - - 57 
<< 5. Infant Baptism a Violation of the Spirit 

and Letter of the New Covenant, - 62 
** 6. Objections and Arguments Considered, 71 
I. Circumcision. Fourteen Reasons against 
Baptism coming in the place of Circum- 
cision, ------ 71 



Vlll INDEX. 

Page. 

Sec. 6. ii. <« All Children of Abraham," - - 74 

III. Christ called Little Children to Him, 75 

IV. Family Baptisms, - - - - 75 
V. Early History of the Church, - 76 

Sec. 7. Conclusion-. - - - - - 82 



CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE DUTY OF BAFHSM. 

Whatever God thinks it important to command, 
it is our duty to do. The spirit that trifles with 
the commands of God, is rebellious. Zeal, fervor, 
and delight in some Christian exercises, often ex- 
ist in connection with actual rebellion against the 
authority of God. King Saul abounded in devo- 
tion, but was rebellious, and God told him, " Behold 
to ohey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than 
the fat of rams." 

Now Christ ordains that all believers shall be 
baptized. Matt. 28:19, "Go ye, therefore, and 
teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 

Mark 16 : IG, " He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be 
damned." 
2 



-6 THE DUTY OF BAPTISM. 

John 3 : 5, " Except a man be born of the water, 
and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom 
of God.'' 

The Holy Spirit by Peter says, Acts 2 : 88, 
" Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the 
name of the Lord Jesus, for the remission of sins, 
and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost,'' and the rec- 
ord is, verse 41, "Then they that gladly received 
his word were baptized ; and the same day there 
were added unto them about three thousand souls." 

Acts 8 : 12, *' But when they believed Philip, 
preaching the things concerning the kingdom of 
God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were bap- 
tized, both men and women," 

36:37, "And the eunuch said. See, here is 
water ; what doth hinder me to be baptized ? And 
Philip said. If thou believest with all thy heart, 
thou mayest." 

Acts 9 : 18, " And immediately there fell from 
his (Saul's) eyes as it had been scales ; and he re- 
ceived sight forthwith, and arose and was baptized." 

22 : 16, "And now why tarriest thou ? arise, and 
be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the 
name of the Lord." 

10 : 47, 48, " Can any man forbid water, that 
these should not be baptized, which have received 
the Holy Ghost as well as we ? And he command- 
ed them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." 



THE DUTY OF BAPTISM. O 

Thus, wherever the gospel was preached, all vpho 
believed were baptized. The act of baptism was 
enjoined by the Holy Spirit, as uniformly, positive- 
ly, and emphatically, as faith and repentance ; and 
the command to be baptized, is just as positive as 
the command to repent, and we have no more right 
to neglect baptism than repentance. 

Some excuse themselves from this duty, because 
they say, *^ It is a mere form," " Is not a saving 
ordinance." But this excuse charges Christ with 
folly, imputes a trifling, vain, and arrogant spirit 
to him, in issuing commands with no good or wise 
object, for no useful purpose. If the act of baptism 
does no good, if it is a mereforin, a non-essential ^ 
then Christ is not a wise, beneficent, and just Ruler, 
as the gospel represents him to be. It is really 
chilling to the soul, to hear the excuses, and observe 
the disrespect which many exhibit towards Christ 
and his laws, and especially the law of baptism. 
But baptism is not a mere form^ any more than 
prayer is. " Baptism is the answer or response of 
a good conscience toward God," and consists in the 
act, and the meaning of the act, or the going forth 
of the intention, or sentiment of the heart, in the 
act, as well as the form. Prayer is a form (though 
not a mere form), but it is useful. Who will assert 
ih2i\.proyer is non-essential ? and yet it is a form as 
much as baptism. Baptism is really useful. It is 



4 THE DUTY OP BAPTISM. 

the act by which we legally put on Christ, and 
identify ourselves wiih his cause ; it is the oulh of 
allegiance to his government, by which we openly 
take sidus with him, and pledge loyalty to the end 
of our days ; and this open confession is a condition 
upon which rich blessings are conferred, blessings 
that w^e cannot safely forego. Can we enjoy the 
favor of God while we slight and reject his com- 
mandments ? 

Some have much to say about the baptism of 
the Holy Ghost, as if that was what Christ enjoined 
upon us. But the baptism of the Holy Ghost is 
never a command, but a promise. Who was ever 
commanded to be baptized with the Holy Spirit ? 
"When did any one but God have power to baptize 
with the Holy Spirit ? What apostle or teacher 
ever had powder to baptize with the Spirit? Those 
who think that Christ commanded his disciples to 
baptize all those who believe, with the Holy Spirit, 
"do err, not knowing the Scriptures." 

Moreover, the command is to baptize the per- 
sons, the believers ; and the history of the baptisms 
which occurred, is that they baptized in water. 
Those who were baptized in Samaria by Philip 
did not receive the Holy Spirit for several days 
after they were converted and baptized. Acts 8 : 
12, 15. And water is distinctly mentioned in 
many cases as the element in w^hich the believers 



THE DtTY OF BAPTISM. O 

were baptized, Acts 8 : 38, 10: 47. The ordina- 
ry influences of the Holy Spirit are never called a 
baptism in the New Testament. The bestowal of 
the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and on the 
household of Cornelius, is termed a baptism, but in 
no other instances. 'With these exceptions, bap- 
tism in the New Testament refers to an act which 
man is capable of doing, or has done, or is in duty 
bound to do ; and this must mean water baptism, 
for this is the only baptism which man is capable 
of performing. Hence the command of Christ 
stands in all its force and sacredness, imposing up- 
on us baptism in water "in the name of the Fa- 
ther, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit," and no 
one who desires the favor of Christ should venture 
to neglect obedience to this his solemn command, 
lest they be numbered among those "Pharisees 
and lawyers who rejected the council of God 
against themselves, not being baptized." Luke 7 : 
30. 

But many admit that Christ commands us to be 
baptized, and yet plead that they "do not feel it 
to be their duty to be baptized.'' This is a most 
absurd and wicked position. It is an unjustifiable 
disrespect of the Word of God. When our Sav- 
iour commands the convert to be baptized, is not 
that enough ? Are we to wait for a new revela- 
tion to us in particular before we can obey ? Is 



THE DUTY OF BAPTISM. 

not one revelation of duty enough ? Are we to 
look to our feelings for the law of our Christian 
life, or to the inspired oracles ? "I don't feel it 
to be my duty !" Then your feelings are wrong, 
for a Christian feels it to be his duty to* obey all 
of the commands of Christ. Search your heart, 
then, dear reader ; look well to your position, be- 
ware lest you deceive yourself; remember that 
Jesus " is the author of eternal life to all them that 
obey him," and to none others ; and if you have 
not a heart to obey Christ rather than your own 
feelings, you have built your hope on the sand. 
It is a sad case, for any one to make a god 
of his feelings, and excuse his disobedience to 
Christ because he does not feel like it. To expect 
the Spirit to impress this special duty upon the 
mind, and to wait for it, is delusion, dangerous 
fanaticism. The Spirit has revealed the duty 
of baptism once, and written it in the Divine ora- 
cles, and that is all that it will do. He that waits 
for a special impression from the Spirit, sins against 
the very Spirit that he expects to teach him, by 
slighting the words which he has already spoken. 
If a person has consecrated his heart to God, his 
baptism should immediately follow, without regard 
to special impressions. And if any are waiting for 
these, they are in this following a different gospel 
than the one which Jesus has given ; and we 



THE DUTY OF BAPTISM. 7 

would kindly and earnestly remonstrate against 
their disobedience. They are without excuse, but 
are not without guilt. To all believers in Christ 
the words of the servant of God to Saul are appro- 
priate : '' Why tarriest thou ? Arise and be bap- 
tized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name 
of the Lord;' 

The strong opposition that many cherish to apos- 
tolic baptism, leads them to undervalue the solemn 
ordinance itself. For if it is made to appear that 
baptism is a " non-essential," they suppose that it 
consequently becomes a matter of indifference, 
whether the yb?'m of the act agrees v/ith the Divine 
Scriptures or not. Hence the influence of a large 
part of the Pedobaptist sects is exerted, really, to 
bring baptism into disrespect ; and the effect of this 
policy is apparent, in the common sentiment that it 
is a matter of indifference ^vhether we are baptized 
or not. That many have fallen into this dangerous 
error, every one is aware, who is at all familiar 
with the sentiment of the Christian public. But 
we beg of the friends of Christianity to remember, 
that just so far as any one law of Christ is brought 
into disrespect, the whole Christian system suffers. 
When people are induced to trifle with one ]aw, 
they readily become lax and irreverent in regard 
to all of the Divine institutions. And those who, 
by precept or example, represent baptism as a 



THE DUTY OF BAPTISM. 



" non-essential," weaken the ciiiise of Christianity, 
and afford ''aid and comfort" to rationalists, free- 
thinkers, and latitudinarians. 

We plead for the integrity of the Christian sys- 
tem, just as Christ has given it to us; without the 
least detraction or addition ; and therefore we 
urge that all should believe on Jesus, repent of all 
their sins, and be baptized, and observe all things 
whatsoever Christ has commanded us. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE ACT OF BAPTISM. 

The gospel imposes the duty of baptism. This 
is some act to be done. Peter says that baptism is 
the answer of a good conscience towards God. An 
answer is a formal response, a reply to one who 
submits to us a proposition. Baptism is the form 
of reply to God's demand that we should be loyal 
to Christ. There are various ways, or forms, by 
which we might return an ''answer" to God: but 
he has thought proper to fix upon one particalar 
act, one special form of '' answer ;" and that form is 
baptism. This legal " answer' does not supercede 
the duty of those moral acts which indicate our de- 
votion to Christ ; neither do moral acts of loyalty 
supercede the duty of baptism, which is the legal 
response and pledge of fidelity to Christ. 

Since baptism is the legal " answer," which is to 
be returned to GoJ, from a good, i. e., an honest 
conscience, it is obvious that the law obliges us to 
do this very act, and that we cannot render the kfjal 



10 ACT OF BAPTISM. 

"answer" by any other act, than the one which the 
law specifies. The very object of the law is to fix 
the foi^m of the " answer.''' If it was to be optional 
with us, in what form we would render our '• an - 
swer," the law would not have decided that we 
should *^ answer" by baptism, Those who say that 
" the form is nothing," that *' the spirit of the law is 
all that is important," forget that the very intent of 
the law is to fix ih^form of the " answer." Why 
did not the Lord merely command us to give an 
honest response to his claims, without reference to 
\\\Q form of the act? Why was he so particular to 
define the very act by which the " answer" should 
be given ? It is not the spirit of loyalty that the 
law of baptism enjoins, but the form of expressing 
our loyalty. Those, therefore, who reject ihefonn 
of the " answer," annul the law which fixes the 
form. Since the object of the law is to ^^ the 
form of the act, those who reject the form^ reject 
the law. 

The law" of baptism is not expressed by a 
multitude of words of various meanings. Christ: 
and the apostles invariably confined themselves to 
one 'particular word. From this fact we should 
infer that he designed to enjoin some one particular 
form of ^-answer." There are many words in the 
Greek, w^hich denote various uses of water, but no 
word is used by the inspired WTiters to enjoin 



ACT OF BAPTISM. 11 

baptism, except hajpiizo, Bapto, another form of 
the same word, from the same root as haptizo, but 
more general and indefinite in meaning, is, for some 
reason, avoided, and haptizo invai'iably used. 

Baptizo expresses a formal act. Whatever that 
act is, whether immersion, sprinkling, or pouring, 
the performance of that particular act is necessary 
to obedience. It is absurd to talk of doing one act 
by another, i. e., eating by hearing, riding by walk- 
ing, immersing by sprinkling. If haptizo has a 
definite meaning, if it expresses a particular act, 
that act, and no other, must be done to comply 
with the law. When we do an act, which is not 
included within the meaning of haptizo^ for baptism, 
we are utterly deceived. No man can be baptized 
by any other act, any more than he can run sitting 
still, or sleep by walking. 

The form of the act must be learned from the 
meaning of the word which the Saviour used to 
express the rite, or the "answer," just as the 
meaning of the words which the Lord used in the 
law of the Supper, fixes the act to be done. We 
are to " eat" and " drink." These are formal acts. 
To " eat" and " drink" is essential to the law. 
Whatever variety may occur in time, place, or atti- 
tude of those who celebrate the Supper, all must 
*' eat" and '• drink ;" the law is not obeyed without 
these formal acts. And the form of the act to be 



12 ACT OF BAPTISM. 

done, must be deckled by the meaning of the words 
which the Saviour used. We know that we are to 
"eat" and " drink," because the words Phago and 
Pio, which the Saviour used, mean to eat and 
drink. How absurd to suppose that this law of the 
Supper can be obeyed without performing the very 
acts which it enjoins. Only think of eating by 
hearing! Drinking by seeing! Can w^e obey the 
spirit of this law, and not do the acts it prescribes? 
Can we celebrate the Lord's death in this supper, 
and not "eat" and "drink" ? 

Now we propose to learn, if we can, what haptizo 
means, that we may know what we are to do when 
we are baptized. We must learn the form of the 
act of bap:ism, or we cannot possibly know what 
act we are to perform. 

But the learned men of the sects are at war 
about the meaning of this word. The wise and 
good men on one side assert that haptizo means to 
sprinkle, pour, or immerse, and that one act is just 
as nf^reeable to its meanini^as another. And those 
equally learned and good, on the other side, just 
as positively assert that haptizo never means to 
sprinkle, but exclusively means to immerse. This 
disagreement proves that education, prejudice, sec- 
tarian zeal, association, or some such influence, 
warps the judgment of good men, and leads them 
to believe, defend, and practice error. This is no 



ACT OF BAPTISM. 13 

uncommon thin^]^ amonoj men. Both sides cannot 
be right in this case. One party must be wrong, 
perhaps both are. We are very liable to be de- 
ceived by partisan zeal. In courts of law the 
most honest of men are not allowed to sit on jury 
in a case where they are personally interested. It 
is not safe. No more is it safe to trust to the opin- 
ions and reasonings of sectarians, in regard to this 
question in dispute. Baptists and Pedobaptists are 
equally liable to be led astray by their zeal for 
their party. We want to be right. But w^e de- 
spair of linding the truth by listening to the argu- 
ings of sectarians. We must exclude them all 
from court, and seek light from other sources. 

We desire to know just what act haptizo express- 
es. We will seek for testimony outside of the 
sects, so as, if possible, to get the opinion of candid 
and competent men. 

Section 1. 

We appeal to the most distin<iuishcd Greek schol- 
ars^ who have devoted their lives to the study of the 
meaning of words. Authors of Greek dictionaries, 
who investigate and write as scholars aud not as 
sectarians, who make it tlieir business to ^V<iie what 
words mean^ and not to support a sectarian dogma, 
shall be our witnesses. We will look to those who 



14 ACT OF BAPTISM. 

are received as good authority in the colleges and 
universities of all the sects. These are the most 
competent and impartial witnesses within our 
knowledge. We \vould rather trust them than the 
most learned and pious men in any or all the sects, 
who have a party to defend. We w^ill give the 
names of fifteen of these distinguished authors, 
with whom all others agree. Scapula, Henricus, 
Stephanus, Bass, Robertson, Donnegan, Pickering, 
Schlensner, Pasor, Parkhurst, Greenfield, Bret- 
schneider, Stokins, Liddell & Scott, and Robinson. 
These men agree in stating that haptizo mean s 
to immerse^ phmge^ dip, icash by immersing, sink, 
submerge, overwhelm* And none of them define it 
to mean to sprinkle, under any circumstances. And 
there is not a Greek dictionary to be found, that is 
received as authority, in Pedobaptist colleges and 
universities, that defines baptizo, to sprinkle. Ac- 
cording to these witnesses, it always means to im- 
merse, and never to sprinkle. If it does ever mean 
to sprinkle, why have not some of these learned 
men discovered it? Why is it that excited parti- 
sans are the only persons that discover this mean- 
ing ? Who are most likely to be right in this mat- 
ter, those who are the acknowledged masters of 
Greek definitions, and who write as scholars, or 
those who look through sectarian spectacles, and 
write to defend a sectarian hobby ? If the word 



ACT OF BAPTIS:VI. 15 

does mean to sprinkle^ it is unaccountable that 
among the score or two of authors of standard 
Greek dictionaries, not a single one of them has 
ever discovered it. 

We beg leave to add the testimony of a very 
distinguished classical author, who is not a Baptist, 
to the above. As a scholar and author he is not 
excelled in America. 

" Columbia College, March 27, 1843. 
^' 3Iy Dear Sir : — There is no authority what- 
ever for the singular remark made by the Rev. Dr. 
Spring, relative to the force of haptizo. The pri- 
mary meaning of the \vord is to dip, or immerse, 
and its secondary meanings, if it have any^ all 
refer, in some way or other, to the same leading 
idea. Sprinkling, &c., are entirely out of the 
question. I have delayed answering your letter, 
in hope that you would call and favor me with a 
visit, when we might talk the matter over at our 
leisure. I presume, however, that what I have 
here written will answer your purpose. 
Yours truly, 

Charles Anthon." 

But the advocates of sprinkling assure us that 
the ^*' Dictionaries have nothing to do with the ques- 
tion." But who does know what baptizo means if 
these learned authors do not ? Who are capable of 



16 ACT OF BAPTISM. 

giving a wise, reliable, and important testimony, if 
they are not ? Shall we resort to the defenders of 
sprinlding for a definition, and rely upon them ? 
Are they likely to be more learned, and freer from 
bias and prejudice than others ? We know how 
easily poor human nature is warped and blinded by 
partisan zeal. We cannot trust sectarians in this 
case. 

But why do they rule the dictionaries out of 
court? If they supported sprinkling by their tes- 
timony, would they be thus summarily ejected ? Is 
not prejudice at the bottom of all this uneasiness ? 

We are told that hojjtizo does not mean the same 
in the New Testament that it does in the classics ; 
that it is used in a religious sense here, and hence 
its classic use is no guide in deciding the case of 
baptism. But this is absurd. Why should a certain 
act be changed to another act, because it is to be 
performed for a religious purpose? Is the classi- 
cal definition of " eat" no guide to the act of eating 
the Lord's Supper ? Does the act, " to drink," be- 
come some other act, when performed for religious 
purposes ? 

Moreover, when Christ and the apostles com- 
manded penitents to be baptized, they wt)uld cer- 
tainly be understood to command an act agreeing 
with the common use of the word haiitizo^ to im- 
merse. They w^ould conclude that a certain spe- 



ACT OF BAPTISM, 17 

clfic act was to be done for a specific religious pur- 
pose. It is the weakest of fallacies to argue that 
when the object of an act is changed, the form of 
the act is also changed, i. e., the certain act becomes 
another act, haptizo becomes rantizOj immersion 
becomes sprinJdwg, that eating may become touch- 
ing the bread, and drinlcing may become looking 
upon the cup. 

We are admonished, by this quibbling, of the 
importance of avoiding and distrusting the testi- 
mony and reasonings of sectarians, and listening 
alone to the testimony of the learned men v/ho 
write as scholars, and not as partisans. We must 
learn from them what we are to do when we would 
obey the commands of Christ, "be baptized," "eat 
of this bread," " drink of this cup." And as they 
all agree in stating that the current meaning of 
haptizo is to immerse^ and never to sprinkle, we will 
do the act commanded. We cannot trust to specu- 
lations, refinements, quibblings, guesses, possibili- 
ties. We wish to travel in a well defined, straight- 
forward, common sense track, do right, obey im- 
plicitly, run no risks, and therefore we will practice 
immersion and reject sprinkling. 

Section 2. 
We have still other itnsectarian witnesses, the 
Cyclopcedists. Religious Cyclopcedists we will re- 
2* 



18 ACT OP BAPTISM. 

ject, for they are sectarian, and therefore liable to 
be prejudiced. Literary and scientific Cyclopae- 
dists are more likely to be unbiased by partisan 
zeal. What do they say of the act of baptism ? 

The Edinburgh Encyclop<xdia says: "In the 
time of the Apostles the form of baptism was very 
simple. The person to be baptized was dipped in 
a river or vessel, with the words which Christ had 
ordained, and to express more fully his change of 
character, generally assumed a new name." 

Brand's Cyclopcedia says : " Baptism (Greek, 
bapto, I dip) w^as originally administered by im- 
mersion, which act is thought by some to be neces- 
sary to the sacrament." 

Chamhers' Cyclop<xdia says : '' Baptism, in the- 
ology, formed from the Greek bcqjtizo, of bapto, 1 
di^j, or phingeJ^ " Some are of opinion that 
sprinkling, in baptism, was begun in cold countries. 
It was introduced into England about the beginning 
of the ninth century.'' 

The Encyclopasdia Britannica, London Encyclo- 
paedia, Eees Cycloposdia, and Encyclopaedia Amer- 
icana, perfectly agree with the above testimony, 
that the primitive practice was to immerse, and that 
this is what baptizo signifies. Now these works 
were not written to defend sectarian dogmas, but 
for historic and scientific purposes ; and they are 
the production, generally, of ripe and independent 



ACT OF BAPTISM. 19 

scholars. They agree with the Greek dictionaries 
as to the meaning of haptizo^ and with one voice 
reject the assumption that i^antizo and haptizo agree 
in meaning. Rantizo is the word which signifies 
to sprinkle, and is never confounded by the sacred 
writers with haptizo, to immerse. 

Section 3. 

Our next appeal is to church historians. Since 
all of the Greek dictionaries, and all of the stan- 
dard literary Cyclopasdists, are so positive in their 
testimony that immersion is the only proper act of 
baptism, according to the sense of the word haptizo, 
it is well to ask of the standard church historians, 
whether the primitive Christians practiced accord- 
ing to this meaning of the word, But w^e will not 
appeal to any Baptist historians, for they may be 
biased in favor of immersion, and our desire is to 
reject all prejudiced testimony. If we could find 
any historians w^ho are Baptists, testifying in favor 
of sprinkling in the primitive church, we would 
surely produce them, for men do not testify against 
themselves, except where the facts are so plain and 
positive that they cannot escape it. It is in just 
such a case of positive fact as this that Pedobaptist 
historians agree in asserting positively that the 
early Christians did uniformly immerse for hap- 
(ism. The facts oblige them to give this testimonyj 



20 ACT OF baptis:m. 

or they would not thus convict themselves. We 
will quote from two of the most distinguished Pe- 
dobaptist historians, with whom every other stan- 
dard historian agrees. 

Mosheim ; Church History, page 87, Yol. 1, says, 
" In this (1st) century haptism was administered in 
convenient places without the public assemblies, 
and by immersing the candidate wholly in water." 
But he does not give the least hint, or intimation 
that sprinkling was ever practiced either in the 
first or second century. Is it supposable that so 
learned a man as Mosheim, in the history of the 
Christian church, could have been ignorant of the 
fact of sprinkling for baptism, had it really been 
practiced ? Would he have failed to justify the 
practice of his own church, by the example of the 
primitive church, if it had been possible to find an 
example of sprinlding during the first two hundred 
years of the Christian history ? 

Let us hear Neander^ the chief of church histo- 
rians. Yol. 1, page 310, "In respect to the form 
of hoptism^ it was in conformity with the original 
import of the symbol, performed by immersion, a 
Sign of entire baptism into the Holy Spirit, of being 
entirely penetrated by the same." 

Neander gives us no intimation that sprinkling 
was ever, in any case, under any circumstances, 
practiced during this century, except in cast of sick 



ACT OF BAPTISM. M 

persons. Then they approached immersion as 
nearly as possible by wetting the body thoroughly. 
And even this was not considered valid, if the party 
recovered. All standard historians, such as 
Geisler, Waddington, Schaff, Eusebius, agree in 
stating that the primitive church uniformly prac- 
ticed immersion, and that sprinkling was gradually 
introduced in cases of sickness, after baptism came 
to be regarded as a means of exorcising the devil, 
and purging out sin. But for nearly a thousand 
years nothing but immersion was tolerated where 
the party was not sick. Is it not singular that all 
of these distinguished Pedobaptist historians agree 
in declaring immersion to have been the practice of 
the primitive church ? 1$ it likely that they give a 
false testimony in the case ? Are they to be set 
aside for the partial testimony of men who read, 
translate, argue, think, under the bias of sectarian 
zeal ? They are agreed with all the learned schol- 
ars who are received as authorized definers of the 
Greek language, and with the learned Encyclopse- 
dists, and the three make as strong, competent, and 
impartial a company of witnesses as can be brought 
forward in any case whatever. To the unpreju- 
diced, their testimony must be final. 

Section 4. 

The practice of the Greek church corroborates 
the above. About the eighth century the Greek and 



22 ACT OF BAPTISM. 

Latin sections of the church divided, making the 
Greek and the Papal churches, which still exist. 
Now the Greek church invariably baptize by im- 
mersion. But the Papal or Latin church practice 
sprinkling for baptism. Therefore the Greek or 
the Latin church must have changed the form of 
this rite since the separation, for we have not the 
least intimation of a difference upon this point be- 
fore the division. Which party has changed? It 
is a notorious fact that the Greeks claim to have 
continued to practice according to the sense of the 
word baptizOj and the example of the primitive 
church, and protest that they have not changed the 
rite. And the Papal church confess that they have 
changed i\\Qform of the act, and claim that they 
have a right to do so. We are not ignorant of the 
assumptions of the Papal church — how she exalts 
herself above God, and supplants the gospel by her 
traditions. This spirit of usurpation is exercised in 
changing baptism to sprinkling^ or haptizo to ran- 
tizo ; and the Protestant sects that have come out 
from Rome have copied this tradition, practice and 
defend this Papal usurpation, and sprinkle their can- 
didates rather than baptize them. In case of sick 
persons, at an early day, the Papists w^ere accus- 
tomed to wet the party thoroughly upon his bed, 
though this w^as not formally authorized, and indeed 
w^as generally discouraged until the eighth century. 
Here is the history of the first law that the Papa! 



ACT OF BAPTISM, 2o 

church ever enacted, authorizing spiinhling for 
hapiism, Edinhw^gh Encyclopcedia, Art. Baptism. 
" The first law for sprinkling was obtained in the 
following manner: Pope Stephen second, being 
driven from Rome by Adolphus, king of the Lom- 
bards, in 753, fled to Pepin, who, a short time be- 
fore, had usurped the crown of France. Whilst he 
remained there the Monks of Cressj, in Brittany, 
consulted him, whether in case of necessity baptism 
poured on the head of the infant would be lawful. 
Stephen replied that it would. It was not till the 
year 1311 that the Legislature, in a council held at 
Ravenna, declared immersion or sprinkling to be 
indifferent. In Scotland, however, sprinkling was 
never practiced in ordinary cases, till after the Ref- 
ormation (about the middle of the sixteenth century). 
From Scotland it made its way into England, in the 
reign of Elizabeth, but was not authorized in the 
established church." Every scholar knows, or 
ought to know, that this history of the case is cor- 
rect. The rite of sprinkling came in by degrees, 
was practiced without authority, was winked at, 
just as the other corruptions of Papacy were, and 
in the eighth century secured a formal recognition. 
This the Papists confess and justify. Protestants 
who have copied this tradition, but do not like its 
parentage, tax their utmost ingenuity to prove that 
sprinkling was practiced by the primitive church, 



24 ACT OF BAPTISM. 

and that it is not inconsistent witli the word which 
Jesus enaployed to describe the act of baptism. 
"Which party is most consistent, the reader must 
judge. The fact is, that sprinkling is purely a^ 
Papal tradition, and there is no more authority for 
it in the gospel, or in the practice of the primitive 
church, than there is for any of the other corrup- 
tions of that mother of heresy. Take, then, the 
claim of the Greek church that they have not 
changed the rite, and the confession of the Papal 
church, that they have changed it ; and the history 
of the case, setting forth when, how, and for what 
reason, they adopted sprinkling for baptism, how 
can we escape the conclusion that all who sprinkle, 
and call it baptism are, in thus doing, following 
Rome, and not Christ. 

Section 5. 

Scriptural references to baptism corroborate the 
above testimony. Not a case of baptism is record- 
ed or referred to in the New Testament which fa- 
vors anything else than immersion. Mark 1 : 5, 
those who came to John " Were baptized of him in 
the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.^' Mark 
1 : 9, Matt. 3 ; 13, Luke 3: 21. " Jesus was bap- 
tized of John in Jordan.'' " And Jesus, when he 
was baptized, went up straightway out of the wa- 
ter.'^ 



ACT OF BAPTISM. 25 

Acts 8 : 38, "And they went down both into the 
water ; both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized 
him;* 

Consider that baptizo always means to immerse 
and these incidental circumstances will be seen to 
harmonize with the meaning of the word. But if 
we should read of baptizing upon the " house top/' 
" out of a bowl/' with a spoonful of water, this 
would be inconsistent with the meaning of the word, 
and would cause doubt and perplexity. But we- 
have no such case. There is not an allusion to a 
case of baptism in the whole New Testament in- 
consistent with immersion. The baptism of the 
three thousand on the day of Pentecost is some- 
times urged as inconsistent with immersion. It is 
asked, How could so many be baptized in one day? 
The difficulty here is a mere shadow. There were 
seventy disciples, and twelve apostles present, to 
do the duties of the day. Now divide 3000 by 82, 
and you will find that each one would have only a 
fraction more than 36 to baptize. This would 
be the work of not more than twenty minutes. 

Moreover Paul, in Eom. 6 : 3, 4, 5, and Col. 2 : 
12, refers to baptism as a buried Now, whether 
this language is figurative or literal, it matters not. 
In either case it equally refers to baptism, and 
proves that the Romans and Colossians were hicried 
when they were baptized. But where do we r^ad 



26 



ACT OF BAPTISM. 



of being sprinkled with Christ; where is there any 
alhision to baptism as sprinkling ? Not an instance 
can be found. 

Some will cite us to Ezekiel 36: 25, "Then 
will I sprinkle clean water upon you," &c. But 
this has no reference at all to the New Covenant, 
Under the Mosaic covenant, the people were sprink- 
led, never, however, with mere water, but wath wa- 
ter and ashes intermingled. And Ezekiel is proph- 
. esying of the return of Israel from captivity, and 
the ceremonies of purification which would then be 
observed. He has not the remotest allusion to the 
Christian institutions. But in every allusion to 
baptism in the sacred oracles, when the least refer- 
ence is had to the form of the act, immersion is in- 
dicated. " Went down into the water," " baptized 
in the river of Jordan,'* " buried with Christ by bap- 
tism," are the common forms of allusion. Where 
there is no allusion to ihQform of the act at all, the 
advocates of sprinkling imagine that sprinkling is 
certain ! 



Section 6. 

Every figurative use of the word laptizOj in 
the New Testament^ involve immenion. 

The beauty of a figure consists in giving the 
litnal sense of a word a metaphorical application. 



ACT OF BAPTISM. 27 

Hence, in all proper metaphors, we can trace the 
sense of the literal. So in the use of baptizo^ as a 
metaphor, we can invariably trace its literal mean- 
ing, either as to the form of the act, or the result 
of the act set forth by the word. 

1. The baptism of the Holy Spirit. Matt. 3 : 
11. Acts 1 : 0. Christ was to baptize with the 
Holy Ghost, This metaphor refers to the effect of 
the baptism, or the bestowal of the Spirit. The 
Spirit was not to be baptized out upon the people ; 
the Spirit was not to be baptized, but the people ; 
hence it is the effect that is contemplated. And 
what was the effect ? Were their minds just touch- 
ed a little by the Spirit, slightly influenced, barely 
sprinkled by the Comforter ? Their whole souls 
were imbued with, brought under the control of, 
overwhelmed by, the Spirit. Sprinkling is a most 
insignificant and false representation of the won- 
derful effect of the gift of the Spirit which was 
shed upon the disciples on the day of Pentecost. 
It filled their souls, and controlled their speech, it 
overwhelmed — immersed them. Nothing short of 
this expresses the abundant gift of God. 

2. Baptism, of fire. Matt. 3 : 11, Luke 3:16, 
17, " He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost 
and with fire :" " whose fan is in his hand, and he 
will thoroughly purge bis floor, and will gather the 



28 ACT OF BAPTISM. 

wheat into his garner ; but the chaff he will burn 
with fire unquenchable." The baptism of fire is the 
punishment of the wicked. Fire, in the sacred ora- 
cles, uniformly denotes punishment, or trials, afflic- 
tions, or persecutions. Now, is the punishment of 
the enemies of Christ properly represented by 
sprinkling ? Can the word mean, " And the chaff 
shall be sprinkled with a few drops of punishment?'^ 
Nothing short of immersion can represent this 
destruction of the chaff", this baptism of fire. 

o. The hirth of water, John 3 : 5, "Born of 
water and the Spirit." This birth of water is the 
outward expression of the birth of the soul to a 
spiritual life. Can this be represented by sprink- 
ling? Is a drop of water upon a person's brow or 
face a true figure of a birth ? It is impossible to 
invent an act more unlike a birth, than the rite of 
sprinkling. And yet baptism is spoken of as a 
birth of water. But immersion is the only act that 
represents a birth ; or that represents the spiritual 
change, of which baptism is the outward figure. Is 
the "new birth" of the soul such a partial, limited, 
insignificant event, that the moistened end of a man's 
fingers, laid upon the forehead, properly represents 
it? This sprinkling rite has robbed these words of 
Jesus of all their beauty and force — it has practi- 
cally excluded from baptism the idea of a birth^ 



ACT OF BAPTIS:\r. 29 

and given nothing in exchange. We would to God 
that those brethren who practice sprinkling would 
cease thus to pervert the right ways of the Lord. 

4. Baptism of suffering, Mark 10 : 38, 39, 
" Can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be 
baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with ?" 
" With the baptism that I am baptized withal shall 
ye be baptized.'' All Christian scholars agree 
that Christ here refers to the terrible sufferings 
which were to overwhelm him, and also be the 
portion of his disciples. Now, are these sufferings 
truthfully represented under the metaphor o^ sprink- 
ling ? Was Christ merely sprinkled with sorrows 
when he bore the sins of the world ? Did the 
early Christians suffer a mere sprinkling of perse- 
cution while preaching Jesus to a guilty world? 
How insipid, untruthful, meaningless, this practice 
of sprinkling makes the words of our Saviour ! 
" Can ye be sprinkled with the sprinkling of suffer- 
ing that I am sprinkled with" I Shocking ! And 
yet, if sprinkling is baptism, the Saviour suid no 
more than this. His sufferings are but a sprink- 
ling. (Metaphors are never weaker than the facts, 
but rather- stronger ; so that the sufferings of 
Christ, according to this notion, must have been as 
limited upon his soul, as sprinkling is a limited ap- 
plication of water to the body. But such an in- 
sipid metaphor with reference to Christ's sufferings, 



30 ACT OF BAPTISM. 

is flilse, wholly false.) Nothing short of immersion 
can truthfully represent the sorrows which over- 
whelmed his holy soul. Sectarian zeal has no 
right to rob our Saviour's \vords of all meaning, 
and represent his sufferings as a trifle. We protest 
against this making void the words of Christ by 
human tradition. We plead for immersion because 
the idea of sprinkling for baptism destroys, utterly 
ruins, some of the most significant and touching 
words of inspiration. To change the meaning of 
any other word in the Christian Scriptures, would 
not cause an equally painful mutilation of the word 
of God as this perversion of the meaning of baptizo. 

0. Baptism the figure of the resurrection, Rom. 
^: A, D^ " Therefore we are buried w^ith him by 
baptism unto death ; that like as Christ was raised 
up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even 
so we also should walk in newness of life. For if 
we have been planted together in the likeness of 
his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his 
resurrection." 1 Cor. 15:29, *• Else what shall 
they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead 
rise not at all ? Wliy are they then baptized for 
the dead ?" i. e., what is the meaning of your bap- 
tism ; why are you baptized to represent the res- 
urrection, if there is no resurrection ? Col. 2 : 12, 
1 Pet. 3: 21. 

By baptism the disciple declared his faith in the 



ACT or BAPTISM, 81 

resurrection of Christ, and his hope of the resurrec- 
tion of all men ; and illustrated this truth by this 
very act. Thus baptism is a perpetual memorial 
of the resurrection of Christ, as the supper is a 
memorial of his death. If Christ was not raised, 
faith, preaching and hope are all in vain ; he is not 
the true Messiah. And hence the importance of 
giving prominence to this event by the rite of bap- 
tism. The resurrection of Christ proves his divin- 
ity, proves that the gospel scheme is of God, and 
that our hope in Christ is well grounded. We 
embody this fact and our faith in it in baptism. 
This rite never refers in symbol to the crucifixion, 
to the shedding of Christ's blood, to the " blood of 
sprinkling." That event is symbolized by the 
supper. But baptism is intimately connected with 
the resurrection, is set forth as the memorial of the 
resurrection, is the proper symbol, and the embodi- 
ment of faith, in the resurrection, so much so that 
it was absurd, inconsistent for those who had been 
baptized to deny the resurrection ; for having de- 
clared faith in it by this act, having illustrated it 
by the act, they stultified themselves w^hen they 
denied the doctrine. iNow, is the resurrection 
properly symbolized by sprinkling ? Those who 
sprinkle, and call it baptism, utterly destroy the 
symbol of the resurrection, they subvert the design 
of Christ in establishing this memorial, they pre- 



32 ACT OP BAPTISM. 

vent the formal embodiment of this glorious truths 
and reverse the law of Christ in respect to it. No 
act can be farther removed from a fit symbol of the 
resurrection than sprinkling. It is just as unlike 
this event as it can possibly be. It does not bear 
the remotest resemblance to it. Now we plead for 
the perpetuity of this memorial of our Lord's resur- 
rection, and pledge of our resurrection, at the last 
day. We protest against this destruction of one of 
the most beautiful and important features of the 
Christian system. Immersion is the only act by 
which this great truth of Christianity can be prop- 
erly commemorated, and when we give up immer- 
sion, we give up baptism, we sacrifice all the beauty, 
meaning and profit of baptism ; nothing is left us 
worth preserving. 

6. Baptism unto Moses. 1 Cor. 10 : 1, 2, "I 
would not that you should be ignorant how that all 
our fathers were under the cloud and all passed 
through the sea, and were all baptized unto Moses 
in the cloud and in the sea." The history of this 
event is found in Ex. 14. The Israelites had the 
pillar of fire before them, and when the hosts of 
Egypt came upon them, it arose and spread over, 
and behind them, leaving a dark cloud in the rean 
When thus concealed, they marched into the tomb 
prepared in the sea. Paul says, they were under 
the cloud, and passed through the sea ; and they 



ACT OF BAPTISM. 33 

were therefore in the tomb ; they were buriedj 
immersed, if any one was ever immersed. But by 
passing through the sea In this entombed condition, 
surrounded, completely shut in, by the cloud and 
the sea, they were baptized. What, then, can bap- 
tism mean here ? Were they sprinkled ? Not a 
drop of water touched them. Were they poured ? 
We have not a particle of evidence of it. Were 
they immersed? We know that the cloud and the 
sea completely surrounded and covered, and en- 
tombed them. This was certainly an immersion i 
not in water alone, not by being wet, but by being 
entombed in cloud and sea. So, then, this figura- 
tive use of baptism involves immersion, and nothing 
short of immersion. 

We know of no other figurative uses of baptism 
in the New Testament. We have seen that in 
every instance where baptism is used as a meta- 
phor, the nature of the case cannot be met by 
sprinkling. The true sense, the beauty, force, and 
truthfulness of the symbols are wholly destroyed by 
substituting sprinkling for immersion. And there 
is not a single case where the symbolic use of bap- 
tism by Christ or the apostles can, by any means, 
be made to refer to sprinkling, even by remote im^ 
plication ; and the substitution of sprinkling for 
immersion, practically " takes away" a goodly por-* 
tion of the Divine oracles, crushes out the sense 



34 ACT OF BAPTISM. 

from many passages, and adopts human tradition 
in their place. Let the reader review the cases 
where baptism is used figuratively; the baptism of 
the Holy Spirit; the baptism of fire; the birth of 
water, by which the birth of the soul is bodied 
forth ; the baptism of sufferings ; baptism to repre- 
sent the resurrection ; and baptism unto Moses, 
under the cloud and in the sea, and he must be 
satisfied that to sprinkle for baptism is a sad per- 
version of the right ways of the Lord, 



Section 7. 
Conclusion* 

We will not proceed farther in the argument. 
If what we have adduced as proof does not con- 
vince, it will be of little avail to multiply argument. 
There is a prevalent obstacle to conviction, which 
argument cannot overcome. Sectarian prejudice 
is not affected by reason, and we do not expect to 
open its blind eyes. But to the candid we confi- 
dently submit our argument as conclusive. If it is 
not so, why does not one^ even one^ standard Greek 
Dictionary define baptizo to mean to sprinkle ? 
Why is it left for sectarians alone to discover this 
meaning ? Why do all the literary Cyclopaedists 
agree with the Dictionaries, that the literal act 



ACT OF BAPTISM. 35 

denoted by haptizo is to immerse ? Why do all, 
the standard Pedobaptist church historians testify 
that the primitive church practiced immersion, and 
not sprinkling; and that sprinkling was introduced 
several hundred years after Christ ? Why do the 
Greek church claim, and the Papal church admit, 
that the Papal church did change the form of the 
rite of baptism, from immersion to sprinkling ? 
Why do Greek, and Papal, and many Protestant 
historians, agree in stating that sprinkling was 
introduced by the Papal church, and was not the 
practice of the primitive church, if these state- 
ments are not true ? Why is there no allusion in 
the New Testament, in any form or manner, to 
sprinkling, if that is lawful baptism ? Why does 
every symbolic use of haptizo absolutely necessi- 
tate the idea of immersion, if immersion is not 
the only act of baptism ? Why are advocates of 
sprinkling driven to adopt the most strange and 
dangerous principles of reasoning, in order to make 
out their case, if they are right? Does truth 
demand such absurd speculations, quibblings, guess- 
es ? Why do they insist and assert that the testi- 
mony of the Dictionaries is of no force ? that the 
word bapttzo has no definite meaning, when all the 
dictionaries say that it has ? IVhy try to make 
out, that *' in the river Jordan," only means " near 
by," " round about !" Why do they call the rite 



36 ACT OF BAPTISIM. 

'^ indecent," and thus censure our Saviour, and 
cast odium upon his ordinance ? Why do they 
exert all their skill to make the Lord's commands 
appear ridiculous ? Why call this rite " non- 
essential ?" weaken confidence in it, or destroy 
all sense of obligation to obey ? If they had a 
good cause, if they were right, these desperate 
and dangerous expedients would not be neces- 
sary. The road to truth is straight, direct, plain. 

We are not pleading for '* m.uch water," nor 
"little water." We are not arguing whether little 
or much water will do the most good. We plead 
for the law of Christ; we argue for obedience to 
his commands. We protest against perverting, 
changing those laws to suit the tastes or prejudices 
of men. We plead for a return to the " old paths," 
and the rejection of all the Papal rites and tradi- 
tions which that " Old Harlot" has brought forth. 
Sprinkling for baptism was born of her, and we 
protest against its continuance. The different 
Protestant sects, as they came out of Rome, 
brought this rite with them. Papists and Pro- 
testants are agreed in the practice of sprinkling 
for baptism. (Baptists are not Protestants, in 
the sense of coming off from Rome.) Sprinkling 
is a relic of Papacy. This fact is supported by all 
history. 

The rules of interpretation which are adopted to 



ACT OF BAPTIS^r. 

justify sprinkling, are destructive to the whole 
Christian system ; they make the gospel a loose, 
uncertain, contradictory affair. By the very pro- 
cess of reasoning which the advocates of sprinkling 
adopt, we can prove by the Bible any and every 
crude and crazy system that was ever conceived. 
And every person who fights against the natural, 
literal, legitimate meaning of haptizo, is dealing 
heavy blows against every just rule of interpreta- 
tion, and hence against every doctrine of Christ. 
Therefore our zeal is not merely for this rite, but 
for the entire Christian system. We see danger 
in this w^ar against Christian baptism. We see the 
beginning of general skepticism ; the birth of a 
loose and fatal system of trifling with the words 
of Christ. The ceaseless changes that are rung up- 
on the phrases, " it is a nonessential," " it is not a 
saving ordinance," " the form is nothing, so long as 
w^e preserve the spirit," " the laws of Christ are 
not arbitrary," are just so many assaults upon the 
authority of Christ. He has imposed this rite, as 
a test of fidelity, a form by which we may embody 
our loyalty, and openly identify ourselves w^ith him 
and his cause ; but these cavillers dissuade from 
careful obedience, make light of particular con- 
formity to the Lord's will, encourage men to follow 
their own fancy rather than the law of Christ, and 
thus undermine the whole authority of Christ* 



38 ACT OF BAPTISM. 

For this cause we plead for a rigid adherence to 
the exact form of the law. 

There is a constant tendency to swing off to a 
rationalistic, traditional, fashionable religion, and 
^^ make void the law of God," and this rite of bap- 
tism involves the whole question. Shall we strict- 
ly obey Christ? Shall we practice exactly the 
religion which he has instituted ? Shall we hold 
fast to the form of doctrine which he has given us? 
or shall we have other gods and other laws ? This 
is what is involved in this question of baptism. 
We contend for a certain act, because that is the 
very act which Christ commands us to perform ; 
because that in that act is involved the principle 
of fidelity to the supreme authority of Christ ; 
because the substitution of another act for the one 
definitely enjoined by the word haptizo, is a dan- 
gerous trifling with the Lord's authority, and opens 
the door to general rationalism and looseness in 
religion ; because immersioyi is the only act which 
is consistent with the symbolic use of baptizo, 
and to substitute sprinkling is to strike out some 
of the richest and most beautiful lessons of the 
gospel, and make the words of inspiration insipid 
and meaningless ; because sprinkling is a Papal, 
and not a Christian, rile ; because it is a privilege 
which every believer has a right to enjoy, of em- 
embodying his faith and loyalty in just that act 



ACT OF BAPTISM, 39 

which Jesus has instituted ; and because there h 
danger that Christ will say of those who reject this 
rite, and prefer the Papal one, as was said of 
certain ones of old, Luke 7 : 30, " TkeT/ rejected 
the council of God against themselves^ not being 
baptized, ^^ 



CHAPTER IIL 

stJBJEcTs OF Baptism* 

All agree that penitent believers are proper 
subjects of Christian baptism. But some deny^ 
while others affirm, that unconscious babes are en- 
titled to this rite. This point has long been sharply 
controverted. One . party is certainly in erron 
Both cannot be right. 

If God commands or authorizes infant baptism, 
it is a fearful thing to oppose it. But if he does 
notj then those who advocate and practice it, " add 
to the words of the book of this prophecy,'^ usurp 
the prerogatives of God, and distract the family of 
believers. Moreover, if the baptism of believers 
alone is authorized in the gospel, the introduction 
of infant baptism destroys, annihilates God^s ordi- 
nance by human usurpation. As baptism is to be 
administered but once, so far as it is given to 
babes, it is forbidden to adults. The baptism of 
babesj and that of belie versj are materially different^ 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTIS^I. 41 

Whichever becomes prevalent, destroys the other. 
Both cannot exist together; one necessarily sup- 
plants the other. So far as infant baptism pre- 
vails, believers' baptism falls into disuse. It is 
important, then, that we should learn the truth on 
this question. To teach and practice error, when 
so much is at stake, is most unfortunate. 

The "aid and comfort" which infidelity derives 
from the divisions of Christians, should stimulate 
us to strive for the truth, for in truth there is 
union. 

Our disagreement upon the positive institutions 
of Christ, is even a greater reproach than that up- 
on moral questions. The skeptic says, " You can- 
not understand your own gospel ; you disagree 
upon the most simple and tangible features of your 
book; even your law upon the positive rites, where 
above all, there should be plainness, simplicity and 
definiteness, is so uncertain, that you are befogged 
and in confusion. Such a book is no fit guide to 
mortals. It could not have come from Gcd." 

For the truth's sake, for the honor of our holy 
religion, for the union and comfort of believers, for 
the good of an unbelieving world, we ought to lay 
aside all prejudice, and strive earnestly to know 
just what the mind of the Lord is upon this sub- 
ject. This very thing the writer has endeavored 

to do. And after protracted and patient investiga- 
1^* 



42 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 

tion of the whole question, in all of its phases, with 
the discussions of learned men upon it, we have 
become fullj settled in the conclusion that, — 

Penitent believers only are scriptural subjects of 
Christian baptism. 

We propose a brief statement of the reasons 
which have brou^^ht us to this conclusion. 



Section 1. 

None but believers are commanded to be bap- 
tized. 

The commission, Matt. 28 : 19, commands the 
minister first to " teach all nations." Now this 
word teach is not the same as is found in the next 
verse. Maihateiisate^ the first word, properly 
means to convert^ or make disciples of. The sec- 
ond word is didasco, and means simply to instruct. 

So in Mark 16 : IG, faith is placed before bap- 
tism. In every case of baptism recorded in the 
New Testament, faith is either the expressed or 
implied antecedent and condition. John's baptism 
was the "baptism of repentance," which, of course, 
excluded babes. And Christ's command w^as, to 
teach^ convert^ lead to faith, and then baptize. 

Now, the law^ of baptism cannot command (he 
baptism of any parties that are not mentioned in 
the law. Those who have faith, are taught, 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 43 

converted, are tlie only ones mentioned. Therefore 
they alone are commanded to be baptized. And 
there is no supplemental law to this. In no instance 
are any commanded to be baptized who are desti- 
tute of faith, Nor is there a hint, or allusion, 
or statement that indicates that any others were 
ever baptized by the apostles, or their cotempora- 
ries. 

The baptism of a babe is so radically different 
from that of a believer, that its baptism cannot be 
inferred from the latter. The act is peculiar, un- 
like the other, specific and distinct, and must there- 
fore have a distinct law to authorize or enjoin it. 
The babe is passive in baptism, the adult is ac- 
tive; the babe is unconscious, the adult exercises 
reason and judgment in the act; the babe is invol- 
untary, the adult is voluntary; baptism of the babe 
is the act of anotlier ; to the adult it is his own act; 
the babe expresses nothing by the act, (or he knows 
nothing ; in this act the believer responds to God's 
claims, returns '*an answer of a good conscience to 
God," the babe enters into no covenant, makes no 
vows, assumes no obligation, but the believer vows 
loyalty to Christ. Hence, infant baptism is not 
the same rite or ordinance that beli>^.ver's baptism is. 
The command to baptize believers cannot be con- 
strued to enjoin another and very different rite, 
the baptism of unconscious babes. This rite needs 



44 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 

a specific law to authorize it, just as much as be- 
liever's baptism does. 

When God instituted circumcision, he deemed it 
necessary to introduce a dt;finite clause command- 
ing the circumcision of babes. This shows that, in 
his judgment, a law imposing a rite upon aduUs, 
did not impose it upon infants, unless they are 
definitely mentioned in it. I'here was the same 
necessity for their being named in the law of bap- 
tism, to make it lawful to baptize them. And the 
fact that they are not mentioned in the law, proves 
that they are not to be baptized. It is a strange 
logic, that can infer a rite like that of infant bap- 
tism, so peculiar, distinct, and unlike any other, 
from a law that institutes another and entirely dif- 
ferent rite. It is evident that the law of Ciirist 
does not directly, nor by implication, or inference, 
or in any other way, enjoin the rite of infant bap- 
tism. And whoever assumes to practice it, there- 
fore, usurps the prerogatives of God ; for it is his 
prerogative alone to institute Christian rites. Now, 
to create and practice a rite as Divine, which God 
has not appointed, to use the name of the Father, 
Son and Holy Spirit, ^vhen God has not given 
authority, to pretend Divine authority when there 
is none, is a most solemn and fearful usurpation. 
Is not this done in the practice of infant bap- 
tism ? 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 



Section 2. 



45 



The haptism of all ivlio have not faith, is pro- 
hibited hy the law of Christ, 

Pedobaplists place great reliance upon the 
assumption that infant baptism is uoi prohibited bj 
the word of God. Their argument is, "The gos- 
pel does not forbid the baptism of unconscious 
babes, therefore it is our duty to baptize them. 
So the Papists reason, " The gospel does not for- 
bid the baptism,of bells, coffins, altars, robes, &c., 
therefore it is right to baptize them." Then, be- 
cause God has not forbidden a rite or ceremony, 
we may assume to practice it as a Divinely author- 
ized act, and use the name of the Father, Son and 
Holy Spirit to sanction it! Have we a right thus 
to make ordinances for God? Ev^en if it were 
true that the gospel does not forbid this rite, it 
becomes usurpation to practice it without a " thus 
saith the Lord," authorizing and commanding it. 

But tlie la'.v does prohibit it. It is an approved 
rule of legal interpretation, that when a law de- 
scribes the character of the parties who are to act, 
enjoy, or suffer under its provisions, it excludes 
all others. A summons that calls " freeholders''' 
to sit on a jury, excludes all others. An enlist- 
ment law that calls for men of a certain age and 
stature, excludes all others from enlistment. An 



46 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 

election law that provides that all white males 
over twenty-one years of age may vote, excludes 
all minor.^, females and blacks, from voting. It is 
wholly unnecessary to state in words, "minors, 
females and blacks shall not vote/' The simple 
fact that certain characters are described as enliiled 
to vote, excludes all persons who do not possess 
that specified character. 

Tlie law of circumcision did not, in words, pro- 
hibit the circumcision of females, but it did, in fact, 
prohibit it, by describing the character of those who 
were to be circumcised. 

The law of baptism specifies what characters 
shall be baptized. It does not ordain the' baptism 
of males nor females, Jews nor Gentiles, tliose born 
of Christian parents, nor those born of infidel par- 
ents, as such. No element of birth, age, sex, or 
physical relation enters into the required character 
at all. But the elements which the law, and the 
practice of the apostles do fix upon, are expressed 
in the words, "teach," "convert,'' *' believeth," 
"repent," " response of a good conscience toward 
God." These words involve and express intelli- 
gence, knowledge of God, faith in Christ, consecra- 
tion to his authority, choice of his service. All 
persons who possess a character containing these 
elements, are commanded to be baptized. Those 
possessed of such a character are the only ones 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 47 

who are described in the law, the only ones that 
are commanded to be baptized. Now, then, by 
coramandin;^ those of a. certain character to be bap- 
tized, all who do not possess this character are 
excluded. And since babes cannot possess the pre- 
scribed character, they are no more entitled to 
baptism than minors are to vote, under the law 
above referred to ; they are excluded from baptism, 
just as positively as believers are included. There 
is no logical escape from this conclusion. The 
law does describe who shall be baptized. Babes 
cannot come within that description. But all who 
do not answer to the description of the law, are ex- 
cluded. By this law, then, the baptism of infants^ 
is prohibited. 

Pedobaptists attempt to turn the point of this ar- 
gument by asserting that we have no specific law for 
admitting females to the Lord's supper, and yet 
they are not excluded. 

We reply, that while there is no authority for 
mcdes nor females^ as such, to come to the Lord's 
table, since sex is not an element in the character 
presented as qualifying for the Lord's supper, all 
disciples are commanded to eat ; and as females, 
as well as males, are disciples, they are, as disci^ 
pies, commanded to partake. But since the law 
does specify that disciples shall partake of the sup- 
per, does it not exclude all who are not disciples ? 



48 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 

Have babes and sinners a right to the supper? 
Are tlie Papists right in giving the supper to 
babes ? Are not children and sinners excluded from 
baptism on the same principle that they are ex- 
cluded from the supper ? The words of the law 
do not exclude them in either case, by specifically 
mentioning them, but the provision of the law, that 
certain characters are entitled to these rights, posi- 
tively excludes all who do not possess these qualifi- 
cations. But at an early day, as early as the last 
of the second century, it was claimed that babes 
had a right to the Lord's supper. We have his- 
toric evidence that infant communion was practiced 
even before infant baptism. And the Papists 
claim that this early practice, is proof that it is an 
apostolic tradition, and obligatory upon the church 
now. They justify it on the came basis, by the 
same reasons, that they justify infant baptism. But 
Protestants reject one of these rites and practice 
the other. Why not practice both? Our Pedo- 
baptist brethren agree to reject babes from the 
supper, because they are not qualified to discern 
the meaning of the rite, because they are not disci- 
ples. For the same reasons babes should be ex- 
cluded from baptism. The law of baptism excludes 
them, by describing those who are entitled to bap- 
tism, as possessed of qualities which are impossible 
to babes. 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. ^9 

Our opponents object again ; that if the law of 
baptism exdudes babes from baptism, it must also 
exclude them from salvation, as they are as inca- 
pable of the character upon which salvation is 
promised, as of the prescribed qualifications for 
baptism. 

We confess that babes are excluded from salva- 
tion, if God has no arrangement to save them on 
terms differing from those upon which sinners are 
saved. But we have reliable testimony from God 
that babes are eligible to salvation without any of 
the conditions to which sinners are subject. They 
are saved without faith, repentance or baptism, and 
God has given his word to this effect. But he has 
not intimated in his word that babes are to be bap- 
tized. If God has made a special provision for 
their baptism, as he has for their salvation, then let 
that provision be presented. It is not in the com- 
mission. No one has ever yet found it in God's 
"Word. 

But the doctrine of infant baptism assumes that 
infants are not saved, without complying with con- 
ditions which are adapted alone to sinners. Its 
advocates, from the first, have taught that baptism 
was a means by which the babe was delivered from 
the wrath of God ; that all who were not baptized 
were still the victims of that wrath, Nine»tenths 
4 



50 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 

of those who practice infant baptism believe this 
now, Indeed, this doctrine is the only reasonable 
justification of the rite. If it does not save the 
" little ones," what good does it do ? What is the 
use of it? We are told that it ** introduces them 
into the covenant of grace.'* Then, are all others 
out of the covenant of grace 7 Is there no mercy 
for them ? In England and America many Pedo- 
baptists have abandoned this doctrine, that baptism 
is necessary to save the babe. But in doing so^ 
they reject the uniform doctrine of the rite, since 
its first introduction. Even now^, w^hen a babe is 
baptized (sprinkled) by a Methodist minister, he 
prays, " We beseech thee for thine infinite mer- 
cies, that thou wilt look upon this child, wash him, 
and sanctify him with the Holy Ghost, that he, be- 
ing delivered from thy wrath, may be received into 
the ark of Christ's church." This implies, 1. That 
the child is exposed to the wrath of God. 2. That 
his baptism is a means of his deliverance. 

So far as infant baptism has any force or mean- 
ing, according to the theory of its advocates, it im- 
plies that babes, without baptism, are exposed to 
wrath and ruin ; and by baptism are brought into 
the " covenant of grace," and redeemed from this 
wrath. But w^e do not regret that our Protestant 
Pedobaptist brethren are apostatizing from the faith 
of their fathers in this regard ; and we expect 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 51 

that, having surrendered the doctrine of the rite, 
they will soon give up the rite altogether. 

Section 3. 

The nature of baptism renders it impossible for 
babes to be baptized. 

The books on theology call baptism a " sacra- 
ment." A Pedobaptist author of note says, " The 
word sacrament is derived from the Latin word 
' sacramentum,' which signifies an oath, particularly 
the oath taken by soldiers to be true to their coun- 
try and general." 

This is what the Scriptures represent baptism to 
be. Believers are commanded to be " baptized into 
the name of the Father^ and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Spirit,''^ We follow nearly all commentators 
in translating eis, in the commission, into ; rather 
than in, as in the common version. Every Greek 
scholar knows that eis, with the accusative, denotes 
penetration, entrance into. So, the candidate is 
baptized " into the name of the Father^^ &c. The 
name of a governor is the same as his authority, 
his official power. God sets up a kingdom, and 
claims service, obedience, loyalty in the gospel. 
He calls upon all men to become citizens and ^' sol- 
diers of the cross." Keeping this in mind, we see 
plainly how it is, that we are baptized ^^into the 



52 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM^ 

nmne of the Father ^^^ &c., and why baptism was 
called a " sacrament" by the early Christians. It 
is a formal entrance into the service of the King, 
it is the oath of allegiance, a pledge of loyalty, a 
vow of fidelity, by which the party binds himself 
to serve, obey, revere, and honor God, by walking 
in all of the institutions of the gospel blameless. 
So we read, Rom. 6 : 3, ^' laptizedinto Jesus Christ,^' 
and Gal. 3 ; 27, " For as many of you as have been 
baptized into Christ have put on Christ J^ As the 
oath of allegiance introduces the alien into the 
privileges of citizenship, and binds him to loyalty 
to the government, as the marriage vow introduces 
the woman into the name, fortune, honors, destiny 
of the husband ; so by baptism, the subjects enter 
formally into the responsibilities of citizens of 
Christ's kingdom, pledge fidelity to Christ as the 
bride of the Lamb, and devotion to his honor and 
cause. This is the meaning, the object and design 
of Christian baptism. If the party is not baptized 
'* into Christ," he has not observed Christian bap- 
tism. 

But an unconscious babe can not be baptized 
" into Christ,'' because he cannot vow fidelity, can- 
not pledge loyalty. In order to this there must be 
faith. No person can come into the name of God 
if he does not know him and believe on him. The 
Holy Spirit says, Heb. 11 : 6, " He that cometh to 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 53 

Grod must believe that he is, aud that he is the re- 
warder of them who diligently seek him." An un- 
• conscious babe cannot believe^ and hence cannot 
come to God, cannot enter into his name, cannot be 
baptized into his name, can know nothing about 
God, and can enter into no covenant with him, nor 
can he make any vows to him. 

Baptism is not, like circumcision, a mark of ped- 
igree, a seal of national descent, a mere physical 
affair, but it is the act of the candidate as well as 
the administrator, a covenant in which the subject 
must be intelligent and active. We have a divinely 
authorized definition of baptism, which settles this 
question beyond dispute. 1 Pet. 3 : 21, "Baptism 
is not the putting away of the filth of the fiesb, 
but the answer of a good conscience toward God.'' 
This is what God says baptism is. This definition 
is plain, concise, complete, and agrees with the doc- 
trine of the commission, and all other scriptural al- 
lusions to the meaning of the rite. Let us consid- 
er this inspired definition. It does not assert that 
baptism is designed to satisfy oz^r conscience, fancy, 
prejudice, education, or superstition. Those who 
thus interpret it, are very inattentive to the sense 
of words. "Answer" is seldom used in the sense 
of satisfy, and certainly is not so used here. Au 
answer is a response to a question or proposition, a 
reply back to one who addresses us. '* The answer 



54 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 

of a good conscierijce" is the response or reply of a 
man who has such a conscience, to the Lord, who 
submits a proposition, and makes a demand that he 
should serve and obey him. The Spirit cuts off 
all chance for mistake here, for he says that " it is 
the answer of a good conscience toward God^^ a 
reply or response to God, not to ourselves, not to 
man, not to the church, not to custom, feelings, tra- 
ditions, but to God, and to him alone. 

According to God's definition then, baptism is 
not something done to a passive, unconscious sub- 
ject. The candidate is necessarily active in it. It 
is his answer to God, his own vow, his own re- 
sponse of loyalty. It cannot be the response of 
any other than an active, intelligent agent. It is 
preposterous that any other character can make 
this response. An unconscious babe cannot re- 
spond to God, cannot know God, cannot accept of 
God's service. Therefore its baptism is unpossi- 
hie. 

Moreover, baptism is the response of a good con- 
science. But a good conscience is an active one, 
and an honest and approving one. This is essen- 
tial to the act. Where there is no conscience, or 
where there is a wicked or guilty one, there can be 
no Christian baptism. There may be immersion, 
or sprinkling, or pouring, but no Christian baptism 
without a conscience, and a good conscience. Now 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTIS^II. 55 

a little babe has no conscience. He cannot have 
one until he has intelligence. Without this, there 
can be no conscience of duty, obligation, sin, nor 
repentance. Therefore Christian baptism is im- 
possible to a babe. The " good conscience" cannot 
respond to God until it exists ; it cannot exist with- 
out intelligence, and as the babe has no intelligence 
be cannot render the response. 

No more is Christian baptism possible to a sin- 
ner. He may be immersed a score of times — the 
name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit may be 
called over him by a minister of Christ, but his im- 
mersion is not therefore Christian baptism. How 
can he render the response of a " good conscience" 
W'hen he has a guilty one? Is i\iQ form of prayer 
real Christian prayer ? Are vi^ords on the lips of 
him whose heaft is far from God, Christian prayer ? 
Must there not be devotion of heart, the answer of 
the soul, as w^ell as words, to constitute prayer ? So 
i\\Qforin of baptism is not baptism. There must 
be the response of a consecrated heart, as well as 
ihQform of the act. Hence there can be no bap- 
tism where there is not first a " good conscience." 

According to God's word the following elements 
are absolutely essential to Christian baptism : 

1. The party must do the act which the law 
specifies. 

2. He must have a conscience of right and wrong. 



56 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 

3. His conscience must be good, i. e., not guilty^ 
not rebellious, not in bondage to sin. 

4. With such a " good conscience'' he must re- 
spond in the required act to God, must use this 
form as the medium for his answer to God's claims 
upon him. 

Now it is utterly impossible for an unconscious 
babe to comply with any one of these essential con- 
ditions of Christian baptism. He is as incapable 
of the formal act as he is of the form of prayer ; 
he has no conscience of right and wrong ; he can 
have no good conscience ; he cannot know God, 
consider a proposition from him, npr respond to his 
claims. He cannot be baptized any more than he 
can pray. It is just as rational, scriptural, and 
truthful for the parents of a babe to pray, and call 
it the babe's prayer, as to pretend to baptize him 
w^hen he is incapable of the first idea essential to 
the act. When he can answer to God from a 
" good conscience," baptism will be possible to him, 
and not before. 

Is there any other Christian baptism than this 
which God has defined ? Is there a baptism that 
is not " into Christ," that is not the " putting on of 
Christ," that is not the " response of a good con- 
science ?" Does the gospel institute a baptism 
radically different from this ? A baptism that in- 
volves no intelligence, no faith, no conscience, no 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM, 57 

knowledge of God, no consecration to him ? It 
certainly does, if it authorizes the baptism of babes, 
for that rite differs from the one which God detines, 
in every particular. But there is but " one Lord, 
one faith, and one haptism,'^^ This baptism an in- 
fant babe never did observe, never can observe. It 
is wholly impossible to him. He never can re- 
spond to God in this rite. There is not skill nor 
power enough in the whole papal church to baptize 
a babe. All of the wisdom and power of Protes- 
tantism is wholly inadequate to this task. The 
deed cannot he done. To talk about doing it is to 
ignore the Divine account of the rite. To attempt 
to practice it is to undertake the subversion of God's 
well defined institutions. 

Section 4. 

Pedolaptists are not agreed among themselves up- 
on the authority for infant baptism. 

If Christians should differ in opinion as to the 
design of baptism, it would not be strange. But 
for those who practice a positive institution to disa- 
gree as to where, how, and when it is authorized, 
proves at least that it rests upon a very dubious 
and uncertain basis. It is a singular state of things 
when the defenders of a positive rite reject, in turn, 
every argument that is urged in support of it, so 
that not one is left that is not condemned as un- 



58 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 

sound, fallacious, and irrelevant, by some of the 
most learned of its patrons. But so it is with in- 
fant baptism. 

Some find authority for it in the law of circum- 
cision ; while others, equally learned, concede that 
no support can be derived from that source. Some 
go to the commission for it, and others assert that 
it is not authorized there. Some infer it from the 
w^ords of Christ: " Suffer little children to com,e 
unto me and forbid them not," but others say that 
the inference is fallacious. Some rely upon ''house- 
hold" baptisms for authority, while others find no 
proof here, since no mention is made of infants, 
and the probabilities are that none were in the fam- 
ilies baptized. Many concede that there is no Scrip- 
tural authority for it; but contend that it is right 
ai^ lawful because it is the natural development of 
the spirit of Christianity. Neander, the learned 
expositor and church historian, says, Church His- 
tory, Vol. 1, page 311, " We have all reason fornot 
deriving infant baptism from apostolic institution ; 
and the recognition of it which followed somewhat 
later, as an apostolic tradition, serves to confirm 
this hypothesis. Irenaeus is the first church teach- 
er in whom we find any allusion to infant baptism, 
and in his mode of expressing himself on the sub- 
ject, he leads iis at the same time to recognize its 
connection with the essence of the Christian con- 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 59 

sciousness ; be testifies to the profound Christian 
idea out of which infant baptism arose, and which 
produced for it at length universal recognition." 

With Neander agree many of the most learned 
Pedobaptists, that this rite did not arise from Scrip- 
tural law, but sprung from *^ a profound Christian 
idea," " the essence of the Christian consciousness," 
i. e., it grew up, w^as developed, like other papal 
rites. 

Dr. Knapp, the learned theologian, savs. Theol- 
ogy, page 494, on infant baptism : " There is no 
decisive example of this practice in the New Tes- 
tament." " There is therefore no express com- 
mand for infant baptism in the New Testament, as 
Marus (page 215) justly concedes." 

In these statements many of the ablest scholars 
among the Pedobaptists agree. And the Papists, 
from whom the baptism of infants was copied by 
the Protestant sects, frankly confess that tradition 
is the only conclusive authority for this rite. Bish-^ 
op Kendric, of the Papal church, in his work on 
baptism, says : " Without the aid of tradition, the 
practice of baptizing infants cannot be satisfactorily 
vindicated; the scriptural proof on this point not 
being thoroughly conclusive." 

Wherefore this confusion and contradiction 
among the patrons of this rite ? Why does one 
reject what another affirms to be valid proof for 



60 SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 

the practice ? Why is there not one argument, or 
Scripture, which is not condemned as inconclusive 
by these friends of the rite ? Some of them say 
that the law of circumcision is not applicable. We 
believe it, and therefore reject it. Manj of their 
learned men concede that neither the commission, 
nor household baptisms, nor any other Scripture, 
definitely authorizes it. We believe them, and 
therefore do not rely upon Scripture proof where 
there is none. Many say that tradition is not a 
valid warrant for the rite. We believe it, and 
therefore reject this Papal basis for the rite. Thus, 
under their own instruction, we are warned against 
the whole system, and assured that the foundations 
of the practice are sandy, unsafe, fallacious, and 
unscriptural. Hence we reject the arguments and 
the rite, and cleave to the Word of God as our only 
safe guide. We are satisfied that if there was a 
good and true foundation for infant baptism, its ad- 
# vocates could find it ; it would certainly be suffi- 
ciently plain and conclusive, so that they could see 
it and be agreed upon it, so that those vv^ho are anx- 
ious to find solid arguments in support of it, would 
not be obliged to condemn those presented as falla- 
cious. Those who are opposed to the rite might 
be over critical, and not see the full force of the 
arguments urged, but if there is logic in them, if 
they have real force, if they are valid, surely all 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 61 

those who believe the rite to be valid, and desire 
conclusive arguments in support of it, would be 
agreed in them. But they are not. There is not 
an argument that is urged in support of it but that 
many of the ablest of the friends of the rite con- 
fess to be inconclusive. Its own partial friends see 
the unsoundness of the foundation upon which it 
rests, and confess it. According to its most ardent 
supporters its authority is very questionable. Their 
disagreement, concessions, and doubts, constitute an 
emphatic verdict against infant baptism, and force 
the conclusion upon us, that it is a human rite, a 
Papal tradition, a matter of " will-worship/' and 
therefore not allowable, not lawful, to those who 
take the Word of God for their guide in religious 
matters. If it was not so, these learned men, who 
have devoted so much time and labor to defend the 
rite, would long since have agreed upon some line 
of argument, some reliable testimony, some satis- 
factory defence of their cherished practice. They 
have given time, talents, learning enough to 
the work to have completed the task, and forever 
settled the question, if it was possible to do it. 
There has been no lack of ability and labor on 
their part, but the result thus far has been confu- 
sion, contradiction, mutual destruction, fatal conces- 
sions, and disagreement. The reason is obvious. 
Infant baptism is not of God, there is no Scripture 



62 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 

for it, it is a usurpation of man's, supported only 
by assumptions and fallacies. 

Section 5. 

Infant baptism is a violation of tJie spirit and 
polity of the New Covenant^ under which we live. 

There are two covenants, the old and the new. 
Pedobaptists make great efforts to prove that we 
are still under the old Abrahamic covenant, and 
that fleshly generation, natural birth, is still a con- 
dition of membership. This is precisely the spirit 
of those Judaizers against whom Paul arrayed his 
tremendous logic, and his apostolic authority. They 
claimed peculiar privileges because of their natural 
descent from Abraham. But Paul rebukes them. 
Gal. 3:3," Are ye so foolish ? having begun in 
the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh ?" 
Pedobaptists contend for this old fleshly element, 
and are determined to drag the old consideration of 
birth, of natural parentage, into the polity of the 
new covenant. They argue that God had a church 
under the old covenant, conferred spiritual blessings, 
and did a great many good things through this 
covenant, all of which we fully believe. But we 
are not to be deceived by the fallacy that God must 
always confer the same blessings, through the same 
channel, or covenant, or on the same conditions. 
In many respects the old covenant and the new 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 6o 

may agree, but it does not, therefore, follow that 
they agree in all respects. But the fact that there 
are tivo covenants or adofiinistrations implies that 
there is a difference between them. Else why 
have two at all ? Now the chief point of differ- 
ence between the two is this : the old isfieshly, the 
new is spiritual, i. e., the old makes natural birth a 
condition of blessings, privileges, and immunities, 
both temporal and spiritual, while under the new 
the flesh, birth, or parentage of the party is not 
considered. There is no Jew nor Greek, no male 
nor female, no bond nor free, as such, in this cove- 
nant. Every human being stands upon a level, 
and all are eligible to the same blessings on the 
same spiritual conditions. But Pedobaptists would 
destroy this peculiarity of the new covenant and 
perpetuate the fleshly distinctions of the old. They 
claim that we are still under the old covenant. Let 
us see what God says about this. 

The old covenant began to be organized in 
Abraham, and was filled out by Moses. The 
Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant are one and the 
same. So Christ understood it. John 7 : 22, 23. 
"Moses, therefore, gave unto you circumcision, 
(not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers) and 
ye on the Sabbath day circumcise a man. If a 
man on the Sabbath day receive circumcision that 
the law of Moses should not be broken, are ye an- 



64 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISMo 

gry with me because I have made a man every 
whit whole on the Sabbath day ?" Thus the 
Saviour regarded circumcision as a part of the 
Mosaic institution, and so absolutely such that obe- 
dience to the law ^of circumcision was obedience to 
Moses, and to neglect this rite was to break the law 
of Moses. Hence the covenant made with Abra- 
ham was filled out by Moses, and this constituted 
one covenant^ called the " eld covenant," " the law," 
^' the covenant of circumcision," ^' fleshly covenant," 
^' carnal commandment," &c. 

Paul regarded circumcision as a part of the Mo- 
saic dispensation, thus making the Abrahamic and 
Mosaic covenant one and the same. Gal. 5 : 2, 3. 
" Behold I Paul say unto you that if ye be circum- 
cised, Christ shall profit you nothing, for I testify 
again to every man that is circumcised, that he is 
debtor to do the whole law." If circumcision 
bound the party to keep the whole law, then it must 
have been a part of the same institution, the law 
was but the filling out of the covenant made with 
Abraham, the first act for the organization of which 
was circumcision. This, then, is the old covenant. 

Now, the new covenant cannot be older than the 
old one ; it must have been constituted since that 
was. God declared by his prophets that he would 
make a new covenant with the people. Jer. 31 • 
31 — 34. " Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 65 

that I will make a new covenant with the house of 
Israel, and with the house of Judah, not according 
to the covenant that I made with their fathers," &c. 
So there was to be anew covenant, and a different 
one made. We read of only two covenants, and 
these the Lord represents as old and new^ and as 
differing in some marked peculiarities. 

When did this new covenant come in force ? 
Heb. ^i ^. '' But now hath he obtained a more ex- 
cellent ministry, by how much also he is the media- 
tor of a better covenant, which was established 
upon better promises." Heb. 9:16, 17. ''For 
where a testament (covenant) is, there must of ne- 
cessity be the death of the testator. For a testa- 
ment is of force after men are dead ; otherwise it 
is of no strength at all while the testator liveth." 
The Saviour was mediator of the new covenant, 
which God said should be made, and this covenant 
came in force when the Lord was crucified. 

And what became of the old covenant then? 
Does that continue in force ? Heb. 8 : 13. " In 
that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the 
first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth 
old, is ready to vanish away." 7 : 18. ^' For there 
is verily a disannulling of the commandment going 
before, for the weakness and unprofitableness there- 
of," Col. 2:14. " He . . . having forgiven you 

all trespasses, blotting out the handwriting of or- 

4* 



6Q SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 

dinances which was against us, which was contrary 
to US, and took it out of the way, nailing it to Ids 
cross,^^ 

The case is plain. The old covenant was " dis- 
annulled,'' " taken out of the way^^' " vanished awayl^ 
'^ nailed to the cross^'' when the new covenant came 
into force. So there was but one covenant in force 
at the same time. 

In Gal. 4: 21 — 31, Paul states this by an alle- 
gory : " Abraham had two sons, one by a bond-wo- 
man, and the other by a free-woman" — the bond- 
woman and her son represent the old covenant and 
those under it ; the free-woman and her son repre- 
sent " Jerusalem which is above," the new cove- 
nant, and those under it. Now what is done with 
this old, fleshly covenant, and those who were un- 
der it ? 30. " Nevertheless, what saith the Scrip- 
ture? Cast out the bond-woman and herson,' cast 
out. annul the old covenant, and the privilege of 
those under it, "jfor the son of the hond-woman^ 
those who are born into the old covenant, " shall 
not he heir with the son of the free-womari,^' shall 
not come into the new covenant by virtue of their 
membership in the old. What can be plainer ? 
What can be more positive than this ? The old 
covenant of circumcision is repealed. But we are 
assured that the new covenant is better than the 
old. Heb. 8:7, " which was established upon bet- 



SUBJECTS OF baptism:. 67 

ter promises." : 8, 9. *' For finding fault with 
them, he saith, Behold the days come saith the 
Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the 
house of Israel, and with the house of Judah. Not 
according to the covenant that I made with their 
fathers." . In what does this superiority consist ? 
: 10. " For this is the covenant I will make with 
the house of Israel after those days saith the Lord ; 
I will put my laws into their mind, and write them 
in their hearts." Here is the difference then. Un- 
der the old covenant, birth, natural generation, in- 
troduced persons into its privileges. But here, all 
who come in must be taught, understand, believe, 
choose the service of Christ. The law is to be 
written in the heart, in the intelligence and affec- 
tions, rather than in the flesh. Disciples are to be 
made by preaching, converting, instructing, dealing 
with the mind, rather than with natural birth. All 
who believe, whatever their birth, can come in ; all 
who do not believe are excluded. But Pedobap- 
tists say, " That believers and their children are 
included in this covenant." They would have it 
read, " I will put my law into the minds of some, 
and some shall come in through natural generation," 
Instead of having it read, " not according to the 
covenant I made with the fathers," they would 
change it, and leave out 7iot^ and give us a covenant 
like the old one. But God's plan is, to have the 



€8 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 

law intelligently received by all as a condition of 
disciplesbip, and to make no account of the flesh. 

And what will be the consequences of this new 
arrangement ? " They shall not teach every man 
his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 
Know the Lord," as they are obliged to under a 
fleshly covenant, for when people come in by natu- 
ral generation, we are likely to have those in the 
covenant who do not know God, who are iniSdels, 
or idolaters, or profane persons. This was the case 
under the old covenant, and is so in those churches 
that baptize babes, and bring them into the church, 
making birth a condition of entrance. But when 
faith and repentance, and an intelligent acceptance 
of Christ is required, we need not say to a member 
of the kingdom, *' Know the Lord," " for all shall 
know him from the least to the greatest.'*^ There 
shall be no " little ones'' who do not know anything 
of God, nor shall there be adults, who have not 
faith, since no one can enter this new and better 
covenant, without first getting the law into the 
mind and heart, by the means which Christ has ap- 
pointed. This is the peculiarity of the new cove- 
nant, which contrasts with the old. The carnal, 
fleshly element is excluded, and all is spiritual ; the 
state of the mind is considered, and " no confidence 
is placed in the flesh." 

Let it not be forgotten that the old fleshly cove- 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 69 

nant is done away, that God has not decreed '' that 
the bond-woman and her son shall not be heir with 
the free-woman," the carnal element of the old 
covenant is not repeated in the new ; here all is 
spiritual, rational, depending upon truth, and the 
action of the intelligence, all is spiritual. 

Now, then, the attempt to bring unconscious babes 
into this covenant, that cannot know God, and are 
certain to grow up in sin, and rebel against him, to 
make birth a consideration for baptism, to take the 
natural born of believers and claim for them the 
right of membership in the covenant by virtue of 
this natural hirth^ is to subvert this characteristic 
feature of the gospel, mar its spirituality, drag the 
carnal features of the old covenant into the new, 
and instead of having a covenant 7iot like the old, 
we are burdened with the rejected features of the 
old, and the covenant is filled with those who do 
not know the Lord, and those who, having grown 
up in sin, will not obey him. The theory of infant 
baptism is directly and positively opposed to the 
spirit of the gospel, and its practice had well nigh 
ruined the Christian cause by bringing in wicked 
materials into the church and destroying the dis- 
tinctions between " one who knows God and one 
who knows him not." It is the doctrine of Christ 
that none but believers, who know God and have 
his law in their hearts, can be members of his new 



70 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 

church. But it is the doctrine of infant baptism 
that " believers and their children'* are members of 
this church. 

The gospel allows none to come into the church 
who do not know God. Pedobaptism brings in 
thousands who cannot know him, and thousands 
who hate him. The gospel disregards birth, or any 
carnal relation, in judging of the qualifications of 
candidates for church membership. Pedobaptism 
makes birth and carnal relations the chief object 
of consideration. 

Christ has repealed the old fleshly covenant, and 
has given us a new, spiritual one. Pedobaptism 
refuses to submit to the decree of Christ, but clings 
to the old fleshly institution, and claims that we 
still live under the old covenant. 

Christ makes reason and voluntary choice indis- 
pensable conditions of discipleship. Pedobaptism 
discards reason and choice, and presumes to make 
disciples without either. 

Christ commands his ministers to convert the 
people, and then baptize them. Pedobaptism re- 
verses this law of Christ, and baptizes those who 
cannot be converted, and denies baptism to those 
who are converted, if they have been sprinkled in 
infancy. 

In every feature, aspect, and doctrine of infant 
baptism, it is subversive of the gospel, a violation 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 71 

of its spirit and letter, and condemned by the entire 
scheme and policy of the new covenant. 

We might here rest our case, and leave the varied 
arguments in favor of infant baptism without any 
farther notice. Indeed, it seems almost superfluous 
to reply to arguments which many of the most 
learned Pedobaptists themselves declare to be fal- 
lacious. But we have no others to reply to, and 
out of deference to our opponents, perhaps we 
ought to give a little more attention to their argu- 
ments. 

Section 6. 

We will notice some of their more specious argu- 
merits. 

I. The one that is relied upon the most, because 
it is capable of more ambiguity than any other hy* 
pothesis, is the covenant of circumcision. It is 
claimed that we live under this covenant, that the 
covenant of circumcision, and the new covenant, 
are identical; and that baptism came in the place 
of circumcision. Babes were circumcised, and 
hence babes ought to be baptized. That this as- 
sumption cannot be true, appears certain. 

1. Because the covenant of circumcision, and the 
new covenant, are not the same. The new cove- 
nant did not come into force until Christ was cruci- 
fied. Heb. 9:16. And a loni^ time after the 



^2 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 

covenant of circumcision was made, God said : " The 
days come when I will make a new covenant." 
Jer. 31:31. Heb. 8:8. 

2. Because the new covenant is not like the old, 
Heb. 8 : 9, and therefore its ordinances are more 
likely to be different from the old than to be like 
them. 

3. Circumcision belonged to the old covenant, 
which was fleshly, confined to the Jews, and politi- 
cal as well as spiritual. Baptism belongs to the 
new, spiritual covenant, where birth and flesh rela- 
tions are not considered. Therefore it is entirely 
improbable that baptism should be administered ac- 
cording to the law for administering circumcision. 
How can the rite, in one covenant, be any guide to 
the observance of a rite under a new and different 
covenant ? Can baptism have come in the place of 
circumcision, when it is not in the same covenant ? 

4. Neither Christ nor the apostles even hinted 
that baptism came in the place of circumcision, or 
that it served the same mission. Circumcision was 
often discussed, but in no instance is it said that the 
apostles pacified the clamor of the Jews for cir- 
cumcision by assuring them that they had the same 
thing in baptism. If it was so, why did they not 
say so ? 

5. Sex 2Lnd parentage were the specified qualifi- 
<jations for circumcision. Males only could be cir- 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 73 

cumcised. All sons of Hebrews must be circum- 
cised. But character, not sex or birth, is the qual- 
ification for baptism. There is not a hint that any 
one could be baptized, on account of fleshly con- 
nection. Hence baptism and circumcision are 
wholly unlike each other, and baptism did not 
therefore come in the place of circumcision. 

6. Adult males circumcised themselves. Is this 
the law of baptism ? 

7. Faith, in adults, w^as never made a condition 
of circumcision. How is it in baptism? Is bap- 
tism the same as circumcision ? 

8. Neither faith nor piety was necessary on the 
part of the parent to entitle his child to circumcis- 
ion. It was only necessary that he be a Jew. Is 
this like the law of baptism ? 

9. Circumcision was never administered in the 
name of Deity. But baptism is to be administered 
into the name of the Father, Son and Spirit. So 
they are radically different rites. 

10. Circumcision bound the party to keep the 
Mosaic law. But baptism does no such thing, 

11. All who were circumcised, were invariably 
commanded by the apostles to be baptized when 
they believed. This w^ould not have been done, 
had baptism come in the place of circumcision. 
Baptism would have been administered only to 

5 



74 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 

Gentiles, and to babes born in the church, if Pedo- 
baptist notions are true. 

12. Those who were circumcised and attempted 
to live up to its obligations, Paul says are '' fallen 
from grace." Is this the case with those who are 
baptized ? 

13. Circumcision was a national badge, a sign 
or proof that the party was a Jew. But baptism 
indicated nothing in respect to nationality, birth or 
worldly relations. Faith in Christ is the language 
of baptism. 

14. Baptism is the "response of a good con- 
science toward God," but circumcision is nothing of 
the kind. 

The fact is, no two rites could be more unlike 
each other in nature, form, and object, than baptism 
and circumcision. 

II. But it is claimed that Paul represents all 
believers as the children of Abraham, and therefore 
in the same covenant with him, and entitled to the 
same privileges. Yes, indeed. But how are they 
children ? Because they " walk in the steps of 
Abraham," and " have faith in God ;" not because 
they are in the same covenant ; for this is never 
intimated. Abraham was a noted example of faith, 
so that he is called the father of all that believe. 
But is it said that he is also a father to their chil- 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 75 

dren ? That his fatherly relations cover the nat- 
ural and fleshly, as well as the spiritual ? Because 
he is said to be a father to believers, in the sense 
of an example and type of faith, it is folly to as- 
sume that this includes the natural seed of believ- 
ers, and brings them into the same relation to 
Abraham that his natural descendants occupied as 
members of the old covenant. 

Ill, " Christ called little children to him and 
blessed them." True. But did he baptize them ? 
If he or his disciples had been accustomed to 
baptize babes, or if John had baptized them, 
would the disciples have objected to their being 
brought ? This case stands against infant bap- 
tism. 

lY. Many families were baptized, and it is 
thought that they m.ust have contained children. 
Did Lydia have children ? Did she have a hus- 
band ? She was a merchant, away from home ; 
did she have babes along with her ? Her house- 
hold was composed of brethren. After Paul got 
out of prison, he went to the house of Lydia, Acts 
16 : 40, " and when he had strengthened the 
brethren, he departed." Did the jailer have 
babes? Acts 16: 34, "He rejoiced, believing in 
God with all his house." They all believed. Were 
there any households baptized when they did not 
all believe ? There is not a 'shadow of proof 



76 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 

that there was. Indeed, the proof is, that they all 
believed. 

V. It is claimed that infants were baptized as 
early as two hundred years after Christ, and hence 
their baptism must have been authorized by the 
apostles. 

If it was authorized by the apostles, why is there 
no mention of their baptism during the days of the 
apostles ? The baptism of believers is often men- 
tioned ; why is there nothing said of baptizing 
babes ? The apostles were setting up new institu- 
tions, and would be very certain during the sixty 
years of their labors, to mention this rite, if it had 
been practiced. 

Our Pedobaptist brethren imagine that there 
were infants baptized. They guess, and presume, 
and imagine, and say it was reasonable to expect 
it ; that the early Christians would have made a 
great ado, if their babes had been excluded ; that 
perfect silence about their baptism is proof that 
they were baptized ; that it don't need any author- 
ity for it ; that Christian parents desire to baptize 
them, and therefore the early Christians did do it ; 
but after all of this poetry and surmising, not a 
word, a hint, or allusion, can be found that creates a 
probability that a babe was ever baptized during 
the apostolic period. 

Moreover, there is not an intimation in all of 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. // 

the writings of the church teachers and historians, 
for two hundred years after Christ, that infant bap- 
tism was ever thought of. Much is written of the 
baptism of believers ; much is said of children, of 
their education, of catechising them, of training them 
for a Christian life, and of their salvation. But 
not a word is said of their being baptized. We 
defy any man to present the first w^ord or sen- 
tence from the writings of any of the fathers for 
two hundred years after Christ, that affirms or im- 
plies infant baptism. Our friends are great on 
imagining, they fancy that they find babes, where 
no unprejudiced or unexcited man can discover 
the remotest sign of them. But it is a terrible 
trial, even for their excited imaginations, to find 
any infants at the baptismal font for two hundred 
years after Christ. None but the most excited 
and visionary among them^ can discover any such 
thing. All the more sober and candid among the 
Pedobaptists admit that not a case of infant baptism 
can be found in the early church during this long 
period. 

But as specimens of warped vision and vivid 
imagination, we will notice the two cases, where 
some suppose that infant baptism is referred to. 
The first is found in the First Apology of Justin 
Martyr, A. D., 140 : 

*' Several persons among us of sixty or sev- 



78 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 

enty years old, and of both sexes, and who were 
disciples to Christ in their childhood, do continue 
uncorrupted." 

Who but an enthusiast would suppose that this 
reference to children implies the baptism of babes ? 
They were disciples from childhood ; thousands 
have believed in childhood, but none in infan- 
cy. 

In Justin Martyr's 2d Apology, this is fully ex- 
plained : 

" I declare unto you how w^e offer up ourselves 
to God after that we are received by Christ. 
Those of us instructed in the faith, are hi'ought to 
the water ^ then they are baptized therein, in the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost. Then we bring the person thus bap- 
tized, or washed, to the brethren, where the as- 
semblies are, that we may pray both for our- 
selves and the newly illuminated person ; that 
we may be found by doctrine and good w^orks, 
worthy observers and keepers of the command- 
ments." 

Thus they were first instructed, and then taken 
out to the water, (the w^ater was not brought to 
them), and baptized. All children w^ere first cate- 
chised, and w^hen properly instructed, they were 
baptized. 

But it is claimed that IrencBus made express 



SUBJECTS OF baptism:. 79 

mention of the baptism of babes. The passage 
quoted reads as follows : 

" Christ came to save all by himself; all, I say, 
who through him are regenerated to God (^renas- 
cunter in Deum); infants, little children, boys, young 
people and old." 

Not a word is said of baptism in the quotation, 
nor in the context. It is salvation^ not baptism, 
that IrencBus is speaking of; and he tells us that 
Christ saves infants. Who denies it, except those 
who teach the Papal doctrine, that infants can 
only be saved by baptism ? Of course Christ saves 
infants. Thousands of Baptists have stated that ; 
but in doing so, they had no idea of teaching that 
infants should be baptized in order to secure this 
blessing. 

The first writer that speaks of infant baptism, is 
Tertullian, in the 3d century, and he speaks decid- 
edly against it. Before him, not a writer gives us 
the remotest intimation that this rite was ever 
thought of; not a case occurs of its being prac- 
ticed ; during this whole period, the entire church 
are as silent as death upon the subject. Is it not a 
most unparalleled instance of sectarian enthusiasm, 
to attempt to prove that infant baptism was prac- 
ticed in the early church, when, for more than two 
hundred years from the Christian era, no man, 



80 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 

orthodox or heterodox, even so much as mentioned 
the thing? Is it possible that this practice was in 
general use, and no man, friend or foe, of hundreds 
of writers, for more than two hundred years, drop 
one syllable about it ? We fearlessly affirm, that 
no man living, can present a single passage from 
the writers of this period, where this practice is 
mentioned or implied. 

But long before this, other gross errors had ob- 

^ tained in the church ; such as penance^ auricular 

confession, and celibacy. Even Polycarp, Justin 

Martyr, and Ignatius, commend celibacy as worthy 

of hearty encouragement. Ignatius says : 

"If any one be able to abide in purity, (celiba- 
cy), in honor of the Lord's flesh, let him do so with- 
out boasting. If he boast, he is lost ; or if he con- 
sider himself on that account to be more than a 
bishop, he perishes." 

Tertullian advocates celibacy. He says : 

" The command, increase and multiply, is abol- 
ished. Yet, as I think, this command, in the first 
instance, and now the removal of it, are from one 
and the same God." 

Infant baptism grew up among these errors, and 
came into use gradually, as the church became more 
and more corrupt. But infant communion began 
to be practiced at the same time, and both baptism 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 81 

and the supper were supposed to have power to 
cast out the evil spirits, and regenerate the infant 
as well as the adult. 

Tertullian justifies celibacy, penance, &c., on 
the same theory that many of the learned Pedo- 
baptists justify infant baptism ; as the groivth oi 
Christian culture ; the fruit of the spirit of Chris- 
tianity ; the product of " a profound Christian con- 
sciousness." He says : 

^' Scripture is of God, nature is of God, disci- 
pline is of God, and whatever contradicts these is 
not of God. If in any case Scripture be ambigu- 
ous, nature is indubitable, and sustained by its tes- 
timony. Scripture cannot be uncertain ; or if there 
were yet any doubt concerning the evidences of 
nature, the discipline, the usage of the churches^ 
which is more directly authenticated by God, shows 
the way." 

Tradition, the usage of the churches, discipline, 
" more directly authenticated by God P' This 
doctrine is the parent of infant baptism, and the 
whole tribe of Papal errors. This practice did 
not "grow out of a profound C%n*5/2a?z conscious- 
ness," but out of heathen notions of sin, and the 
m means of redemption. They held that sin was a 
virus born into the constitution of man, and that it 
might be excluded by incantations, penance, bodily 
inilictions and ceremonies. And hence they thought 



82 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 

they could cast out the evil spirit by baptism and 
the supper, with other rites copied from the heathen. 

Section 7. 
Conclusion. 

We have proved in the preceding discussion : — 

1. That believers only are commanded to be 
baptized, and that ministers of the gospel have no 
command to baptize any others. If they do bap- 
tize them, they usurp authority, infringe upon the 
prerogatives of God, use the name of the Father, 
Son and Holy Spirit unlawfully. 

2. We have proved that by specifying and de- 
scribing the character of those to be baptized, the 
law of Christ does positively forbid the baptism of 
all who do not possess this character. Infants 
cannot possess it, and therefore are excluded from 
the rite. It is therefore just as unlawful to bap- 
tize a babe, as to baptize an infidel ; or to baptize 
bells, robes, altars, and utensils of Papal worship in 
the name of Deity. 

3. We have proved that it is utterly impossible 
for a babe to receive Christian baptism ; since the 
Spirit says, that "baptism is the response of a 
good conscience toward God ;'' and it is not possi- 
ble for babes to have a good conscience, to know 
anything of God, nor to respond to him. Hence 



SUBJECTS OF BAFTIS:\I. 83 

all the ministers in creation cannot administer 
Christian baptism to an unconscious babe. 

4. We have shown that every theory, argument, 
and speculation in support of infant baptism, is, in 
turn, condemned and rejected by the most learned 
among the Pedobaptists themselves, as fallacious, in- 
conclusive, illogical and untrue. If the friends of this 
practice issue verdict against the arguments of their 
own brethren, in support of it, it must be because 
the arguments are really unsound. "What they re- 
ject, we reject, and there is nothing left but a bare 
assumption, a bold tradition. 

5. We have proved that infant baptism, by bring- 
ing in a fleshly element, violates the spirit and let- 
ter of the new covenant, which is spiritual ; and 
admits no one to its privileges in consideration of 
birth, or carnal relations ; but makes teaching and 
conversion the invariable law of introduction to its 
blessings. The fleshly element belonged to the 
old cnvenant, but is positively opposed to the spirit 
of the new and better covenant. 

6. We have shown the fallacy of the arguments 
and assumptions which are urged in support of this 
practice ; and proved that there is not a hint or 
allusion to infant baptism during the entire ministry 
of the apostles, and for more than two hundred 
years after the Christian era. 

In looking over the speculations of the defenders 



84 SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 

of infant baptisna, we are astonished and pained at 
the irrational and forced interpretations of Scrip- 
ture, and desperate expedients to which they re- 
sort in support of their dogma. They are doing 
more to unsettle the minds of the people in the tes- 
timony of Scripture than all the skeptics in the 
land. Upon their principles of interpretation, there 
is not a doctrine of Papacy, of heathenism, or 
Christianity, but that can h^ proved^ and disproved^ 
by the Bible. The legitimate tendency of this 
course is to mystify and confuse the minds of the 
people in regard to Christianity, and finally drive 
many into total darkness and unbelief. 

The mission of infant baptism has been full of 
evil. It has carnalized the new and spiritual cove- 
nant ; it has brought corrupt and unconverted men 
into the church ; it has perverted the ideas of sin, 
and the conditions of salvation, ^nd begotten mil- 
lions of false hopes ; it has mad^ the church a 
political hierarchy, directed by men who have 
grown up in it, and were destitute of the spirit of 
Christ ; it has given birth to many bloody persecu- 
tions, murders and robberies for matters of relig- 
ious faith ; and those who have practiced this rite, 
stand alone in the shame of persecution ; as 
those who rejected infant baptism have never been 
known to persecute, but have always been advo- 
cates of freedom of conscience ; it has done away 



SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 85 

with believers' baptism, repealed the law of Christ, 
and substituted the baptism of unconscious babes ; 
it has usurped the prerogatives of God, and created 
an ordinance which God never made ; it has fought 
against the word of God, and plead for tradition in 
its place ; it has always been an enemy to a fair, 
frank, straight-forward interpretation of the Scrip- 
tures, and has practiced a false and dangerous 
policy of interpretation ; it has always been an 
enemy to a pure Christianity, a pure church and 
gospel order, and denies to man the right to read, 
hear, believe, and practice for himself. 

A large volume could scarcely narrate the many 
evils that have grown out of this practice. And as 
we love the gospel, love truth, and dislike error 
with all its consequences, w^e pray and labor that 
this carnal institution may be done away, and never 
more disturb the peace and prosperity of Christ's 
church on earth. 



J 



i 



! 
Deaciaitiea using the Bookkeeper process. ' 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservatlonTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1 1 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 





014 479 977 A 



